Sample
int-470667e8dcdc-I12
Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local variables
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.822 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.527 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.217 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 6 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 18.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.806 | 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. | 1055.401 | −34.828 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 61 | +24.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 5.161 | −7.741 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -9.3 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-9.3) = 0.
| Score | 0.822 |
|---|
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. | 62 | −1.159 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 103.968 | +0.873 |
| 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. | 103.968 | −0.738 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.04 | +0.552 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 60.905 | +0.441 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 33 | +0.404 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 33 | −0.336 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.107 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.107) = 0.527.
| Score | 0.217 |
|---|
| Score | 6 |
|---|
Run 1
This code is exceptionally readable. Structure is logical with clear class-level Javadoc explaining purpose, deprecation, and usage. Imports are clean. Nesting is essentially flat; no complex conditional or loop structures exist. Intent is unambiguous: the class provides CBOR message conversion via Jackson, with clear constructors and a setter. Code length is minimal and focused, avoiding unnecessary boilerplate. Each method performs one clear action or delegates appropriately, and the constructor chaining is concise. The reading flow is natural from class documentation to constructors to override methods. Assertions are used effectively to enforce preconditions without clutter.
Run 2
The code is highly readable due to its clear class-level Javadoc, logical constructor chaining, and minimal nesting. Intent is explicit: it defines a deprecated CBOR message converter. Methods are concise and perform single actions, with assertions placed clearly before delegating to the parent class. Structure follows typical Spring style, with imports and annotations organized predictably. The only minor drawback is slight repetition of the CBORFactory assertion, but this aids clarity without harming flow.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. Structure is logical with clear separation between constructors and overridden method. Nesting is minimal — only one-level depth within methods. Intent is explicit: a CBOR message converter with an ObjectMapper validated to use CBORFactory. Code is concise with no redundant logic. Each method performs one focused action per line, aided by assertions and delegating calls. Reading flow is natural, moving from default constructor to custom constructor to overridden setter. Javadocs are informative and deprecation is clearly noted.
Run 1
Code Structure: Clearly organized into imports, class documentation, constructors, and an overridden setter. Nesting: Flat methods with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit CBORFactory validation, and useful documentation clearly communicate the converter's purpose and requirements. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is somewhat longer than the executable code but provides relevant context. Action granularity: Each statement performs a distinct action on its own line. Reading flow: Natural progression from default construction to custom configuration and setter validation. Minor spacing inconsistencies and lengthy fully qualified documentation links slightly reduce visual polish.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized into imports, class documentation, constructors, and an overridden setter. Nesting: Flat method bodies with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, detailed Javadoc, and explicit CBORFactory validation clearly communicate purpose and constraints. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is extensive but useful, with minor repetition of the factory requirement. Action granularity: Each statement performs a distinct action; the builder chain is compact and understandable. Reading flow: Natural progression from default construction to custom configuration and subsequent mapper updates. Minor formatting inconsistencies, such as extra blank lines and no separation after the package declaration, slightly reduce polish.
Run 3
Code Structure: Logically organized into a default constructor, custom constructor, and mapper setter, with consistent validation. Nesting: Flat method bodies with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit CBORFactory checks, and informative Javadoc clearly communicate purpose and requirements. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is longer than the executable code but remains useful. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action; the short builder chain is easy to follow. Reading flow: Natural progression from class documentation to construction and configuration. Minor formatting issues, including missing separation after the package declaration and an extra blank line before the setter documentation, slightly reduce polish.