Sample
int-6cc1f24bffd5-I07
Insert deterministic runtime-dead branches into callable bodies
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.258 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.149 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.088 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 57 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 13.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.317 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 8401.13 | −277.237 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 167 | +66.8 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 5.088 | −7.632 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -209.2 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-209.2) = 0.
| Score | 0.258 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 168 | −4.912 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 128 | +3.69 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 127 | −2.493 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 166.896 | +1.923 |
| Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names. | 113.964 | −1.162 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 114 | +1.035 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.086 | +0.108 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.741 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.741) = 0.149.
| Score | 0.088 |
|---|
| Score | 57 |
|---|
Run 1
The code demonstrates good structure with clear class organization, method separation, and comprehensive Javadoc. However, several issues impact readability. The main processing method is well-structured with a single if-else branch and clear variable assignments, though it contains some moderate complexity. The findTestBeanFactoryMethod method is quite long and includes nested loops with string manipulation, which could be extracted for clarity. The code includes unnecessary validation checks (dead code with XOR operations) that add noise. The use of Assert methods with lambda expressions is good, but some lambda chains are lengthy. The fully-qualified method name parsing loops add complexity. Reading flow is generally good, but the action granularity varies - some lines contain multiple logical operations. The commented debug lines and ambiguous variable names (like 'meth') reduce clarity. Overall, the code is functional but could benefit from extracting helper methods and removing dead code for better maintainability.
Run 2
The code has a clear purpose and reasonable documentation, but suffers from several readability issues. The structure is logical, separating handler creation from method discovery. However, there are suspicious no-op assertions (e.g., 'if (((0x8892 ^ 0x8892) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); }') scattered throughout, which are dead code and severely hurt clarity. Nesting is moderate but the fully-qualified method name parsing logic contains deep conditional blocks. The method findTestBeanFactoryMethod is overly long and handles too many responsibilities: parsing names, loading classes, filtering methods, and validating results. Some lines are dense, combining multiple operations. Reading flow is disrupted by the dead assertions and the mixing of levels of abstraction. Action granularity varies—some lines perform one clear action while others pack multiple operations.
Run 3
The code has clear structure with well-separated methods and good Javadoc documentation, but several issues reduce readability. The main method 'createHandler' has moderate nesting with conditional logic that's fairly clear. However, the 'findTestBeanFactoryMethod' method is quite long (50+ lines) and handles multiple responsibilities including fully-qualified name parsing, class loading, and method filtering. There are suspicious injected lines like 'if (((0x8892 ^ 0x8892) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); }' that appear to be artifacts or obfuscation attempts. Variable names are generally descriptive, and method names clearly indicate their purpose. Action granularity is mostly one-action-per-line, but some lines combine multiple operations. Reading flow is disrupted by the artificial assertion checks and the long complex method. The code could be improved by extracting the fully-qualified name handling into its own method and removing the artificial assertion statements.
Run 1
Code Structure: Well-organized methods separate handler creation, factory lookup, and enclosing-class traversal, though the main lookup method handles several responsibilities. Nesting: Generally shallow, with moderate nesting in fully-qualified name processing and exception handling. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, documentation, and useful error messages explain the purpose; repeated always-false hexadecimal XOR guards are distracting and unexplained. Code length: Mostly justified by validation and lookup requirements, but redundant guards and some verbose expressions reduce concision. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, while injected guard lines combine conditions and throws and compound predicates require extra attention. Reading flow: Logical progression and helper delegation support readability, but unindented guards, tightly packed imports, and long assertion expressions interrupt the otherwise consistent flow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Well-organized methods separate handler creation, factory-method lookup, and hierarchy traversal, though the main lookup method handles several responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with moderate nesting in fully qualified name processing and exception handling. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, thorough Javadoc, and helpful comments explain the purpose; repeated always-false hexadecimal XOR assertions introduce confusing, purposeless noise. Code length: Generally justified, but dead assertions and verbose validation expressions add unnecessary bulk. Action granularity: Most lines perform a single action, while injected one-line conditional throws and compound predicates reduce scanability. Reading flow: The progression from annotation validation to method discovery and handler construction is natural. However, inconsistent indentation of the injected assertions interrupts the otherwise consistent formatting, and long assertions and chained expressions require extra attention.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods separate handler creation, factory lookup, and recursive searching logically, though the main lookup method handles several responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with moderate nesting in the fully qualified name loop and its try/catch. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, Javadoc, comments, and informative exceptions explain the purpose well; repeated hexadecimal XOR checks are meaningless distractions. Code length: Generally justified by validation and documentation, but dead checks and lengthy assertion expressions add unnecessary bulk. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action; the inserted checks combine conditionals and throws on a single line, while chained expressions require extra parsing. Reading flow: The search sequence is coherent, but unindented dead checks interrupt otherwise consistent formatting, and dense multiline predicates and error-message construction slow reading.