Sample
pyint-2ad1a02601c8-I10
Deterministically remove some optional blank lines and bracketed line breaks
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.122 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.424 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 78 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 7 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.436 | 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. | 5435.556 | −179.373 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 146 | +58.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.507 | −6.76 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -118.864 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-118.864) = 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. | 147 | −4.168 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 113 | +3.171 |
| 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. | 140.966 | −2.306 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 113 | −2.172 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 145.824 | +1.629 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 140.993 | +1.47 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.063 | +0.33 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.976 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.976) = 0.122.
| Score | 0.424 |
|---|
| Score | 78 |
|---|
Run 1
The code suffers from inconsistent formatting and poor readability. Signatures are often split illogically across lines (e.g., 'open(', 'session_transaction('), with arguments scattered or misaligned. Several function calls have unusual spacing and line breaks, making them visually confusing. The `session_transaction` method is relatively clear, but the `open` method mixes builder handling, context management, and response setup in a way that is moderately tangled. Nesting is not deep, but action granularity is uneven — multiple operations are crammed into single lines in some spots. The lack of consistent indentation and alignment, combined with some overly long lines, disrupts natural reading flow. Intent is mostly understandable due to docstrings, but structural and formatting issues heavily undercut clarity.
Run 2
The code has a clear purpose as a Flask test client, but readability suffers from inconsistent formatting and poor indentation. Some function signatures and method calls are overly dense, with arguments laid out awkwardly. Vertical alignment is inconsistent, especially in methods like `session_transaction`, `open`, and `_update_cookies_from_response`. The nesting is moderate but occasionally tangled due to multiple conditionals and context managers. Docstrings are helpful but some are overly long, interfering with scanning. Several lines contain multiple actions, like constructor settings or cookie update calls. Overall structure is logical, but the formatting inconsistencies and unnecessarily verbose line breaks make the code harder to read than it should be.
Run 3
The code exhibits severe readability problems. There are multiple instances of methods with arguments split across several lines without alignment or indentation consistency, making signatures hard to parse. Unnecessary line breaks and spaces disrupt reading flow, e.g., `super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)` in `__init__`. Long method calls with arguments and closing parentheses aligned erratically further reduce clarity. Some methods are excessively long; `session_transaction` combines several actions and branches, violating action granularity. Deep indentation and nested `if` chains in `open()` complicate comprehension. The intent of certain constructs, such as `_new_contexts` and `preserve_context`, is not sufficiently documented. Type annotations exist but do not compensate for layout flaws. The code requires significant visual scanning to reconstruct logical structure, making it unfriendly to readers. No pervasive flatness or concise line discipline is evident, negatively affecting maintainability and review efficiency.
Run 1
Code Structure: Methods separate session management, request construction, environment copying, and context cleanup logically. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with manageable branching in open(). Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type annotations, docstrings, and context-management comments explain behavior well; types and helpers not defined in the snippet slightly reduce self-contained clarity. Code length: Reasonably concise for the functionality, although lengthy docstrings add reading overhead. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, but a few chained calls and crowded argument lists require extra parsing. Reading flow: Execution generally follows a natural sequence, but irregular spacing, awkward line breaks, long lines, and missing blank lines between methods noticeably disrupt readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically divided into focused methods, although missing blank lines weaken visual separation. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with manageable branching in open(). Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type hints, docstrings, and lifecycle comments explain behavior well; externally defined types and helpers require additional context. Code length: Generally appropriate for the functionality, though documentation is lengthy relative to some methods. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, but compressed argument lists and a chained builder call make individual operations harder to scan. Reading flow: Execution follows a coherent request and context lifecycle, but irregular spacing, awkward line breaks, and crowded signatures noticeably interrupt readability.
Run 3
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into focused methods, though inconsistent spacing between methods weakens visual organization. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with manageable branching in open(). Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, type annotations, docstrings, and context-management comments explain behavior well; undefined names in the excerpt and a misleading 'request is None' comment introduce ambiguity. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise, although lengthy docstrings and some long expressions increase reading effort. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, with a few chained calls and crowded argument lists reducing clarity. Reading flow: Execution follows a natural sequence, but irregular indentation within signatures, excessive inline whitespace, awkward closing parentheses, and long lines repeatedly interrupt scanning.