Sample
int-26c8eff5baf9-I11
Split eligible integer literals into pairs of short-named intermediate variables
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.891 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.84 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.868 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 45 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.655 | 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. | 2136.514 | −70.505 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 112 | +44.8 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.366 | −6.55 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -23.385 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-23.385) = 0.
| Score | 0.891 |
|---|
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. | 113 | −2.965 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 88 | +2.307 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 111.675 | +1.151 |
| 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. | 75.982 | +0.447 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 67.956 | +0.292 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.101 | −0.039 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.661 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.661) = 0.84.
| Score | 0.868 |
|---|
| Score | 45 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable. Structure is clear and logical: an abstract class with well-separated, grouped overrides. Nesting is flat, with only a minor two-level pattern in methods that delegate and return 'this'. Intent is explicit—the class wraps another ByteBuf and delegates reference counting, touch, and buffer operations, with naming like 'refCnt0' and 'isAccessible0' indicating internal hooks. Code length is concise; methods are short and avoid redundancy since public final methods delegate to protected/package-private templates. Action granularity is mostly one action per line, though some single-expression bodies avoid unnecessary blocks. Reading flow is natural, grouping related methods (accessibility, ref-counting, buffer metadata) and maintaining consistent delegation patterns. Minor improvements could include reducing redundant delegate methods or clarifying the deprecated nature, but overall it is highly readable.
Run 2
The code exhibits excellent readability through its clear, consistent structure. Each public method delegates to a corresponding package-private method, creating a logical separation between the final API and extensibility points. The nesting is completely flat with no conditional logic or complex control flow. Intent is unambiguous—every method clearly delegates to the wrapped ByteBuf instance via unwrap(). Code length is appropriate for the functionality, with no unnecessary verbosity. Each line performs a single action, either delegating a call or returning a result. The reading flow is natural and follows a predictable pattern: public override, then internal delegation method. The class-level Javadoc and @Deprecated annotation clearly communicate the purpose and intended usage. Minor deductions could be made for slight repetition in the delegation pattern, but this is idiomatic for Netty and enhances clarity rather than detracting from it.
Run 3
The code is generally readable with a clear structure and consistent pattern. It uses a straightforward delegation pattern where each public method forwards to a corresponding internal method, which then delegates to the unwrapped buffer. The method names are descriptive, and the final/override modifiers make the intention explicit. However, there is some duplication in the method pairs (e.g., `retain()` and `retain0()`), and the nested delegation could be simplified. The code is flat and easy to follow, with no excessive nesting or multi-action lines. The deprecated class and methods are marked appropriately. While it is concise for its purpose, the repetitive pattern reduces the score slightly.
Run 1
Code Structure: Methods are logically grouped, with consistent delegation to the wrapped buffer. Nesting: Flat methods contain no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The class documentation and descriptive method names clearly communicate its wrapper role, although the purpose of the methods suffixed with '0' is not explained. Code length: Individual methods are concise, but repeated forwarding layers add boilerplate and slightly increase reading effort. Action granularity: Each statement occupies its own line, cleanly separating delegation from returning this. Reading flow: Consistent formatting, adjacent overloads, and predictable implementation patterns make the class easy to scan; the extra helper-method hops modestly interrupt the flow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Well-organized class with consistently paired public methods and delegation helpers. Nesting: Completely flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Documentation and explicit delegation through unwrap() clearly communicate the wrapper role, although the purpose of the '0'-suffixed helpers is not explained. Code length: Individual methods are concise, but repeated forwarding layers add length and some redundancy. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single action, with mutations and returns cleanly separated. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and grouping of overloads make the code easy to scan; helper indirection introduces minor navigation overhead.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods are logically organized, grouping related reference-counting operations and buffer queries. Nesting: Entirely flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Documentation and descriptive method names clearly establish a delegating buffer wrapper, although the '0' helper suffixes and extra delegation layer are not explained. Code length: Methods are concise, but repeated public-method/helper pairs add boilerplate and length. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action, with delegation and returning this cleanly separated. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable method patterns make the code easy to scan; tracing through helpers introduces minor friction.