Sample
int-f113d2b1010d-I10
Remove about 40% of line-break groups while retaining structure
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.063 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.009 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 49 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 5.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 10 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.211 | 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. | 7651.854 | −252.511 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 115 | +46 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 5.034 | −7.551 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -205.192 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-205.192) = 0.
| Score | 0.063 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 244.983 | −6.711 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 244.991 | +3.148 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 116 | −3.071 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 76 | +1.892 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 76 | −1.323 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 114.866 | +1.196 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.082 | +0.142 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -4.658 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-4.658) = 0.009.
| Score | 0 |
|---|
| Score | 49 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is barely readable due to severe formatting issues. Multiple statements are crammed onto single lines (imports, method signatures, conditionals), making it visually chaotic. Indentation is inconsistent, and braces are misplaced, obscuring code structure. The logic itself is not inherently complex, but the presentation makes it extremely hard to follow: the eye must parse dense lines to find where one statement ends and another begins. There is no standard Java formatting, violating all normal expectations. Concepts like candidate method processing are mixed with exception handling in a way that is difficult to trace. While some method documentation exists, the overall lack of whitespace, standard line breaks, and proper indentation overwhelms any clarity of intent. This code would be rejected in any professional Java codebase and requires an auto-formatter before review.
Run 2
The code suffers from severe readability issues. Multiple statements are packed onto single lines (e.g., field declarations, method signatures, and conditionals), violating the 'one action per line' principle and disrupting natural reading flow. The class declaration and method signatures are also compressed onto single lines, making the structure difficult to parse. Deep nesting is present in the fully-qualified method name parsing loop, with multiple try-catch blocks and conditionals creating tangled logic. While some Javadoc comments clarify intent, formatting inconsistencies (e.g., mixed indentation, inline braces) and excessively long boolean assertions obscure the code's purpose. The method `findTestBeanFactoryMethod` is overly long and handles multiple responsibilities, reducing clarity. Overall, the logical organization exists but is buried under poor formatting, dense lines, and inconsistent style, making the code tiring to read.
Run 3
The code suffers from severe formatting issues that significantly impair readability. Multiple statements are packed onto single lines (imports, method signatures, if-statements), violating the 'one action per line' principle. The createHandler method has deeply nested conditional logic and multiple operations per line. While the Javadoc is well-written and the overall structure is logical, the actual implementation is compressed into dense, hard-to-scan blocks. The findTestBeanFactoryMethod method is particularly problematic with long lines, nested loops, and complex boolean conditions crammed together. The code's intent is clear from documentation but the execution makes it unnecessarily difficult to follow the logic flow. Basic formatting improvements alone would raise readability significantly.
Run 1
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into handler creation, factory-method lookup, and recursive search, though the main lookup method is dense. Nesting: Mostly moderate, but the fully qualified name loop combines conditionals and exception handling with compressed braces. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, detailed Javadoc, comments, and informative validation messages clearly explain the purpose. Code length: Generally justified by the search and validation requirements, although long expressions make scanning harder. Action granularity: Frequently poor; multiple imports, declarations, assertions, and control-flow transitions share lines. Reading flow: The overall algorithm follows a sensible sequence, but inconsistent formatting, inline closing braces, and oversized lines repeatedly interrupt it. Strong naming and documentation preserve comprehension despite substantially degraded presentation.
Run 2
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically divided into handler creation, factory-method lookup, and recursive discovery, but compressed formatting obscures these boundaries. Nesting: Mostly moderate, though the fully qualified method-name loop combines conditionals and exception handling in a difficult-to-scan block. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, detailed documentation, comments, and informative exception messages clearly explain the purpose. Code length: Implementation length is reasonable for the functionality; documentation is extensive but useful, while several lines are excessively long. Action granularity: Multiple imports, declarations, assertions, and control-flow transitions frequently share lines, substantially reducing readability. Reading flow: The overall sequence is coherent, but inconsistent line breaks, inline closing braces, and crowded expressions repeatedly interrupt scanning.
Run 3
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into handler creation, factory-method lookup, and recursive search, but compressed formatting obscures these boundaries. Nesting: Mostly moderate, though the fully qualified method-name loop combines conditionals and exception handling in a difficult-to-scan block. Clarity of intent: Descriptive identifiers, Javadoc, comments, and informative validation messages explain the purpose well. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise for its responsibilities; documentation is useful rather than redundant. Action granularity: Numerous imports, declarations, assertions, and control-flow transitions share lines, significantly reducing readability. Reading flow: The overall sequence is logical, but inconsistent spacing, long expressions, and closing braces followed immediately by statements frequently interrupt scanning. Conventional formatting and one statement per line would substantially improve readability without changing the design.