Sample
pyint-5247c5d06a26-I13
Lower every eligible synchronous for loop to a while loop
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.58 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.443 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 17 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 16.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.743 | 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. | 901.892 | −29.762 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 24 | +9.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.562 | −6.843 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -18.136 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-18.136) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.058 | +0.383 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 25 | +0.151 |
| 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. | 84 | +0.107 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 24 | +0.093 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 23.906 | −0.076 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.322 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.322) = 0.58.
| Score | 0.443 |
|---|
| Score | 17 |
|---|
Run 1
The code demonstrates good readability. Structure is logical: imports are grouped, and the class has a clear purpose. Nesting is minimal—only one nested call inside `get_by_natural_key`, which is necessary and clearly formatted. Intent is clear: the manager retrieves a permission by its natural key components. Code length is concise; no extra methods or comments are needed. Action granularity is appropriate: one meaningful action per line, with keyword arguments kept on separate lines for clarity. Reading flow is natural—signature, return, and nested call follow a top-to-bottom order. Minor deductions: unused imports (`auth`, `AbstractBaseUser`, etc.) could confuse readers, and the `use_in_migrations = True` line lacks context for novices, but these are minor. Overall, the code is well-structured and easy to follow.
Run 2
The code is well-structured and highly readable. Import statements are cleanly organized by library/source. The class has a clear purpose (manager for Permission model), and the `use_in_migrations` flag is explicit. The `get_by_natural_key` method is concise, with one clear action per logical portion. Naming is descriptive. The only minor deduction is that the nested call to `get_by_natural_key` for ContentType slightly increases reading complexity, but it is still understandable and follows Django conventions. Overall, it is idiomatic and easy to follow.
Run 3
The code is generally readable but has some minor issues. The import block is organized, though it contains unused imports (send_mail, make_password, AbstractBaseUser, BaseUserManager, auth, PermissionDenied, EmptyManager, timezone, UnicodeUsernameValidator) which adds unnecessary length and clutter. The class definition is clear with an appropriate manager inheritance. The get_by_natural_key method has reasonable structure but could benefit from breaking the nested get_by_natural_key call into a separate line for better readability. The method chains are logical and the parameter naming is clear. The code demonstrates good use of Django conventions and follows a natural flow from imports to class definition to method implementation. However, the unused imports suggest the code was copied from a larger module without cleanup, which impacts clarity of intent.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports and a focused manager class are logically organized, though many imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Shallow class/method nesting is easy to follow; the nested lookup adds only modest complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names clearly communicate retrieval of a permission by its natural key, although Django familiarity helps. Code length: The method is concise, but the extensive import list distracts from its small implementation. Action granularity: Arguments are neatly separated across lines, and the return expression represents one cohesive operation. Reading flow: The progression from imports to class configuration to lookup method is natural, with consistent formatting and a clearly readable multiline query.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and a small manager class are logically organized, although many imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: The class and method introduce minimal nesting; the nested lookup remains easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class, method, and parameter names clearly communicate a permission lookup by natural key. Code length: The implementation is concise, but the extensive import block outweighs the actual logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs a coherent action, though the return expression combines content-type resolution with permission retrieval. Reading flow: Conventional formatting and multiline arguments provide a natural flow, with only minor visual complexity from the chained, nested lookup.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports precede a focused manager class and a single method, providing clear organization. Nesting: Shallow overall, with only a nested lookup inside the return expression. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class, method, and parameter names clearly communicate permission retrieval by natural key, although Django familiarity helps. Code length: The implementation is concise, but many imports are unused in the provided snippet and add clutter. Action granularity: Each statement has a clear role; the return expression combines content-type lookup and permission retrieval without becoming difficult to follow. Reading flow: Consistent indentation and multiline keyword arguments make the method easy to scan. Additional spacing between import groups and before the class would improve readability.