Sample
pyint-cf5b9b7e54f6-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.018 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.729 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 182 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.384 | 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. | 12824 | −423.192 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 395 | +158 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.225 | −6.337 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -262.659 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-262.659) = 0.
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. | 396 | −12.985 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 395 | +12.925 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 394 | −8.62 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 394.965 | +5.111 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.077 | +0.189 |
| 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. | 83.96 | +0.109 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -4.004 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-4.004) = 0.018.
| Score | 0.729 |
|---|
| Score | 182 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is moderately readable. It benefits from clear class structure, good type annotations, and logical method separation. Each preparation step (method, URL, headers, body, auth, cookies, hooks) is isolated in its own method, which aids comprehension. The imports are well-organized and comments occasionally clarify intent, such as why IDNA encoding is used. However, readability is reduced by excessive vertical whitespace and empty comments (lines with only '#' and no text), which break reading flow and add noise. Several methods, especially prepare_url and prepare_body, are long and contain multiple conditional branches, increasing cognitive load. Action granularity is generally one action per line, but some lines combine multiple operations or are densely packed. The nesting depth is acceptable, though prepare_body has several nested conditionals that could be flattened or extracted. Overall, the structure is sound but would benefit from removing empty comments, reducing method length, and extracting some logic for clarity.
Run 2
The code demonstrates solid structure with clear separation of methods and logical organization, but readability is hampered by several factors. The abundance of blank comment lines with '#' suggests removed documentation, leaving many sections unexplained. Deep nesting occurs in prepare_body and prepare_url methods, making flow harder to follow. While type hints are comprehensive and helpful, they add visual noise in some method signatures. The import section is overly long but logically grouped. Many methods have good single-action-per-line patterns, but some sections pack multiple operations. The reading flow is disrupted by excessive empty comments and inconsistent spacing. Variables have descriptive names, and error handling is clear. Overall, it's maintainable code that would benefit significantly from restored docstrings and some refactoring to reduce nesting.
Run 3
The code is generally well-structured and readable, with clear intent and good use of type hints. It follows a logical organization with separate methods for preparing different parts of an HTTP request, making it easy to follow the flow. The nesting is mostly flat, with only a few conditional blocks that are appropriately scoped. Action granularity is good—most lines perform a single, clear operation. However, there are some readability downsides: the code is quite long with many methods spanning 20-40 lines each, which can feel dense. There are also several commented-out sections and explanatory comments that, while helpful, add visual noise. Some method signatures are large with many optional parameters, making them slightly harder to parse at a glance. The use of casts and type annotations throughout helps clarify intent but also adds verbosity. Several nested if/else blocks in `prepare_body` and `prepare_url` create moderate cognitive load. Overall, the code would be understandable to experienced Python developers but might overwhelm junior developers or those unfamiliar with the requests library internals.
Run 1
Code Structure: Well organized into focused preparation methods, with a clear coordinating prepare method. Nesting: Generally moderate, but prepare_body has several nested branches and exception handlers that increase cognitive load. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations communicate purpose, though missing documentation leaves subtle streaming, authentication, and URL-handling behavior unexplained. Code length: Mostly justified by functionality, but excessive blank lines, broad imports, and some redundant branching reduce concision. Action granularity: Consistently uses one main action per line, making operations easy to follow. Reading flow: The preparation sequence is natural and helper methods are sensibly grouped, but whitespace clutter interrupts scanning. Referenced types and mixins not defined in the snippet also limit standalone comprehension.
Run 2
Code Structure: Well separated into focused preparation methods, with a clear orchestration method; the large import block and dependencies absent from the excerpt add overhead. Nesting: Mostly shallow, though prepare_body has several nested conditionals and exception handlers. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations communicate purpose, but missing documentation leaves streaming behavior, authentication updates, and special cases less obvious. Code length: Generally justified by functionality, but excessive blank lines and whitespace unnecessarily stretch the code. Action granularity: Statements consistently perform one action per line, making operations easy to follow. Reading flow: The preparation sequence is natural and related operations are grouped, although whitespace noise and the branching in prepare_body interrupt scanning.
Run 3
Code Structure: Well-separated preparation methods provide logical organization, with prepare() clearly coordinating the workflow. Nesting: Mostly shallow, although prepare_body() contains several nested branches and exception handlers that require extra attention. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations explain most operations, but missing documentation leaves subtle streaming, authentication, and encoding behavior less clear; external mixins and types also limit standalone comprehension. Code length: Generally justified by functionality, but excessive blank lines, a large import section, and the lengthy prepare_body() reduce concision. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making individual operations easy to follow. Reading flow: The preparation sequence is natural and methods are consistently organized, but whitespace noise, scattered casts, and complex body-handling branches interrupt the flow.