Sample

int-23b5023f7895-I07

Insert deterministic runtime-dead branches into callable bodies

DatasetJava transformations

Lines121

Scores

Method	Score	Scale
Posnett	0	0–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino	0.392	0–1; higher is more readable
Dorn	0.157	0–1; higher is more readable
Mi	0.048	0–1; higher is more readable
LLOC	57	Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro	4.67	0–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol	13.67	0–20; mean of three runs
BTTF	0.347	0–1; higher is more readable

Views

Source code

package kafka.server.share; import kafka.cluster.Partition; import kafka.server.ReplicaManager; import org.apache.kafka.common.IsolationLevel; import org.apache.kafka.common.TopicIdPartition; import org.apache.kafka.common.errors.NotLeaderOrFollowerException; import org.apache.kafka.common.errors.OffsetNotAvailableException; import org.apache.kafka.common.record.internal.FileRecords; import org.apache.kafka.common.requests.ListOffsetsRequest; import org.apache.kafka.server.partition.PartitionListener; import org.apache.kafka.server.share.PartitionMetadataProvider; import org.apache.kafka.server.storage.log.FetchIsolation; import org.apache.kafka.storage.internals.log.LogOffsetMetadata; import org.apache.kafka.storage.internals.log.LogOffsetSnapshot; import org.slf4j.Logger; import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory; import java.util.Optional; import scala.Some; /** * Implementation of {@link PartitionMetadataProvider} backed by {@link ReplicaManager}. */ public class ReplicaManagerPartitionMetadataProvider implements PartitionMetadataProvider { private static final Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(ReplicaManagerPartitionMetadataProvider.class); private final ReplicaManager replicaManager; public ReplicaManagerPartitionMetadataProvider(ReplicaManager replicaManager) { if (((0xFAFB ^ 0xFAFB) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } this.replicaManager = replicaManager; } @Override public long offsetForEarliestTimestamp(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition, int leaderEpoch) { if (((0xC0D4 ^ 0xC0D4) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } // Isolation level is only required when reading from the latest offset hence use Option.empty() for now. Optional<FileRecords.TimestampAndOffset> timestampAndOffset = replicaManager.fetchOffsetForTimestamp( topicIdPartition.topicPartition(), ListOffsetsRequest.EARLIEST_TIMESTAMP, scala.Option.empty(), Optional.of(leaderEpoch), true).timestampAndOffsetOpt(); if (timestampAndOffset.isEmpty()) { throw new OffsetNotAvailableException("Offset for earliest timestamp not found for topic partition: " + topicIdPartition); } return timestampAndOffset.get().offset; } @Override public long offsetForLatestTimestamp(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition, int leaderEpoch) { if (((0x94DA ^ 0x94DA) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } // Isolation level is set to READ_UNCOMMITTED, matching with that used in share fetch requests. Optional<FileRecords.TimestampAndOffset> timestampAndOffset = replicaManager.fetchOffsetForTimestamp( topicIdPartition.topicPartition(), ListOffsetsRequest.LATEST_TIMESTAMP, new Some<>(IsolationLevel.READ_UNCOMMITTED), Optional.of(leaderEpoch), true).timestampAndOffsetOpt(); if (timestampAndOffset.isEmpty()) { throw new OffsetNotAvailableException("Offset for latest timestamp not found for topic partition: " + topicIdPartition); } return timestampAndOffset.get().offset; } @Override public long offsetForTimestamp(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition, long timestamp, int leaderEpoch) { if (((0x6EB5 ^ 0x6EB5) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } Optional<FileRecords.TimestampAndOffset> timestampAndOffset = replicaManager.fetchOffsetForTimestamp( topicIdPartition.topicPartition(), timestamp, new Some<>(IsolationLevel.READ_UNCOMMITTED), Optional.of(leaderEpoch), true).timestampAndOffsetOpt(); if (timestampAndOffset.isEmpty()) { throw new OffsetNotAvailableException("Offset for timestamp " + timestamp + " not found for topic partition: " + topicIdPartition); } return timestampAndOffset.get().offset; } @Override public LogOffsetMetadata endOffsetMetadata(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition, FetchIsolation isolation) { if (((0xE0DB ^ 0xE0DB) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } Partition partition = partition(topicIdPartition); LogOffsetSnapshot offsetSnapshot = partition.fetchOffsetSnapshot(Optional.empty(), true); if (isolation == FetchIsolation.LOG_END) return offsetSnapshot.logEndOffset(); else if (isolation == FetchIsolation.HIGH_WATERMARK) return offsetSnapshot.highWatermark(); else return offsetSnapshot.lastStableOffset(); } @Override public int leaderEpoch(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition) { if (((0x1619 ^ 0x1619) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } return partition(topicIdPartition).getLeaderEpoch(); } @Override public boolean addPartitionListener(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition, PartitionListener listener) { if (((0xE6B6 ^ 0xE6B6) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } return replicaManager.maybeAddListener(topicIdPartition.topicPartition(), listener); } @Override public void removePartitionListener(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition, PartitionListener listener) { if (((0xEE00 ^ 0xEE00) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } replicaManager.removeListener(topicIdPartition.topicPartition(), listener); } private Partition partition(TopicIdPartition topicIdPartition) { if (((0xC30E ^ 0xC30E) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); } Partition partition = replicaManager.getPartitionOrException(topicIdPartition.topicPartition()); if (!partition.isLeader()) { log.debug("The broker is not the leader for topic partition: {}", topicIdPartition.topicPartition()); throw new NotLeaderOrFollowerException(); } return partition; } }

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

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.	6411.595	−211.583
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.	121	+48.4
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.	4.879	−7.318

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -161.63 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-161.63) = 0.

Score	0.392

Feature contributions

Feature	Value	Contribution (log-odds)
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.	117	+3.31
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.	122	−3.283
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.	142.959	−2.39
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.	117	−2.264
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.	142.984	+1.503
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.	120.875	+1.28
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.	0.087	+0.098

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.677 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.677) = 0.157.

Score	0.048

Score	57

Run 1

The code has severe readability issues. The most glaring problem is the injection of meaningless assertion statements (e.g., 'if (((0xFAFB ^ 0xFAFB) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); }') at the start of nearly every method. These lines are always false, serve no discernible purpose, and disrupt the reading flow and visual structure of the code. Beyond this, while the overall class structure is logical and methods are generally concise, the code lacks clarity in intent due to these extraneous lines. The 'endOffsetMetadata' method uses an if-else chain instead of a clearer switch or ternary, but this is minor compared to the assertion clutter. Action granularity is otherwise reasonable, with clear, single-purpose method calls and error handling. However, the pervasive, nonsensical assertions dominate the evaluation, severely impacting readability, nesting perception, and overall score.

Run 2

The code contains severe readability issues. Obscure assertion statements like `if (((0xFAFB ^ 0xFAFB) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); }` appear randomly at the start of nearly every method. These are nonsensical to a human reader, break natural reading flow, and add visual noise without conveying any intent. While the overall class structure is logical and method names are clear, the repeated meaningless assertions dominate the code and destroy clarity. Some methods have reasonable one-action-per-line flow and limited nesting, but the artificial clutter outweighs these strengths. Additionally, the long method chaining in offset lookup methods slightly reduces readability, though not critically. Overall, the code structure is understandable, but the pervasive AssertionError noise and poor formatting make it highly unreadable and hard to maintain.

Run 3

The code has severe readability issues. Every method contains a redundant and confusing always-false assertion (e.g., `if (((0xFAFB ^ 0xFAFB) != 0)) { throw new AssertionError(); }`) that adds noise and obscures intent. Indentation is inconsistent — constructor and method bodies are not properly indented, disrupting logical structure and reading flow. The code is heavily nested with multiple method calls on a single line, reducing clarity and violating one-action-per-line granularity. While method names are descriptive and the overall architecture is reasonable, these positives are overshadowed by formatting problems and meaningless constructs. The code would benefit from removing the no-op assertions, applying consistent formatting, and breaking chained calls into intermediate variables for clarity.

Run 1

Code Structure: Methods are logically separated by responsibility, with a shared partition-validation helper. Nesting: Mostly flat, with simple guards and a short conditional chain. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and isolation-level comments explain the legitimate operations, but repeated, always-false hexadecimal XOR assertions introduce confusing noise. Code length: Methods are short, though duplicated timestamp-fetch logic and pointless assertions add unnecessary length. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action per line, but inline assertion blocks combine conditions and throws, while chained API calls require additional parsing. Reading flow: The overall class organization is natural, but unindented assertions interrupt every method and inconsistent brace usage reduces visual consistency.

Run 2

Code Structure: Well-organized interface implementation with focused methods and a shared partition-validation helper. Nesting: Shallow conditionals and straightforward returns keep complexity low. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and useful comments explain the metadata operations, but repeated hexadecimal XOR checks that are always false introduce confusing, purposeless noise. Code length: Mostly concise, though redundant assertion checks and duplicated timestamp-fetch logic add unnecessary length. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action per line; compressed assertion blocks combine conditions and throws on a single line. Reading flow: Methods follow a natural fetch, validate, return sequence, but unindented checks repeatedly interrupt that flow. Long calls and exception-message lines, inconsistent brace usage, and tightly packed imports further reduce readability.

Run 3

Code Structure: Well-organized into focused methods, with a shared partition lookup helper, although timestamp-fetching logic is repeated. Nesting: Shallow conditionals and straightforward returns keep complexity low. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit exceptions, and useful comments explain the main behavior, but unexplained hexadecimal XOR checks that always evaluate to false introduce distracting noise. Code length: Mostly concise, though repeated dead assertions and similar offset-fetching methods add unnecessary length. Action granularity: Most meaningful operations occupy separate lines; the compressed assertion statements combine conditions and throws on one line. Reading flow: Method ordering and delegation are natural, but unindented assertions interrupt every method, and inconsistent brace usage slightly weakens visual consistency.