Sample
pyint-4d8bb7dc5069-I07
Insert deterministic runtime-dead branches into callable bodies
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.405 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.918 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.496 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 6 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.837 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.853 | −7.279 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 144.754 | −4.777 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 7 | +2.8 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -0.386 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-0.386) = 0.405.
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. | 59.875 | +1.129 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 8 | +0.753 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.024 | +0.713 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 7 | −0.495 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 6.705 | −0.316 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 60 | +0.164 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 2.416 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(2.416) = 0.918.
| Score | 0.496 |
|---|
| Score | 6 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It uses a clear import block with forward compatibility and type-checking support. Class definition is concise with a docstring that clearly states intent. Nesting is virtually nonexistent, and each import/logical action is on its own line. One minor deduction for lack of context: the class is empty but inherits from `RequestException`, and `CompatJSONDecodeError` import is not used in the shown snippet, making purpose slightly ambiguous without surrounding code. Overall, very clean.
Run 2
The code is clean and well-organized. It uses a clear import structure with future annotations and explicit imports. The class definition is simple and readable, with a clear docstring explaining its purpose. Nesting is minimal, and the intent is straightforward. The only minor deductions are for the somewhat redundant import of JSONDecodeError (likely for backward compatibility) and the alias 'BaseHTTPError' which may be slightly confusing without context. Overall, the code is highly readable and maintains a natural flow.
Run 3
The code is clean, short, and clearly structured. It imports necessary items, defines a custom exception class with a docstring, and inherits from a request exception. Intent is obvious, nesting is minimal, and reading flow is natural. However, some imported items (TYPE_CHECKING, Any, BaseHTTPError, CompatJSONDecodeError) are unused in the visible snippet, which slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it is very readable but not perfect due to unused imports and lack of additional context.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports followed by a single exception class are logically organized, though spacing between import groups and the class could improve. Nesting: No unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: The class name and docstring clearly identify an HTTP-related exception, but RequestException is not defined or imported in the snippet, and several imports appear unused. Code length: Very concise, although unused imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each import and declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: Straightforward top-to-bottom flow, slightly weakened by unrelated imports and the unresolved base class.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports followed by a single exception class provide straightforward organization. Nesting: No nested control flow, making the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: The HTTPError name and docstring clearly convey its purpose, but RequestException is not defined or imported in the snippet, obscuring the inheritance context. Code length: Very concise, though all displayed imports are unused within this snippet and add visual noise. Action granularity: Each import and declaration occupies its own line, with no combined actions. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression; an additional blank line before the top-level class would improve conventional Python formatting.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports precede a clearly separated exception class, providing logical organization. Nesting: There is no unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: The class name and docstring clearly identify an HTTP exception, but RequestException is not defined or imported in the snippet, and the other imports appear unused. Code length: The snippet is concise with no redundant implementation. Action granularity: Each import and declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: The flow from imports to class definition is natural, though import grouping and an additional blank line before the class would improve formatting.