Sample
pyint-37bf4c35f06d-I13
Lower every eligible synchronous for loop to a while loop
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.078 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.572 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 160 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.32 | 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. | 9921.788 | −327.419 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 245 | +98 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.498 | −6.747 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -227.296 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-227.296) = 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. | 246 | −7.674 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 219 | +6.838 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 219 | −4.605 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 244.902 | +3.013 |
| 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. | 121.98 | −1.501 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 121.992 | +1.164 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.074 | +0.222 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -2.473 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.473) = 0.078.
| Score | 0.572 |
|---|
| Score | 160 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is generally readable with clear class structure, type hints, and docstrings. It follows a logical flow: state initialization, header building, and response handling. Nesting depth is mostly manageable, though handle_401 has some branching. The build_digest_header method is long but well-segmented, with inline comments explaining non-obvious parts. Action granularity is good—most lines perform one operation. However, some sections reduce clarity: repeated lambdas for hash algorithms could be consolidated; the 'XXX not implemented yet' entdig variable is dead code; and a few lines (e.g., string concatenations with time.ctime() and os.urandom) could be broken down. Overall, the code is above average but could be slightly more concise and consistent.
Run 2
The code is fairly readable overall with clear class structure, type hints, and docstrings. The build_digest_header method reads logically and keeps most actions on separate lines. However, readability is reduced by several factors: deeply nested conditional logic in the algorithm selection, repeated hash function definitions that could be factored out, and some cryptic variable names like 'KD', 'A1', 'A2', 'HA1', 'HA2', and 'ncvalue'. The handle_401 method is dense and contains multiple responsibilities. Walrus operators in conditional checks add concision but slightly hurt readability. The use of comments helps explain non-obvious sections. Structure would benefit from extracting hash algorithm setup and digest calculation into helper methods.
Run 3
The code shows reasonable structure with clear class organization and type hints, but has several readability issues. The build_digest_header method is overly long and complex, containing deeply nested conditionals and multiple similar lambda definitions that could be consolidated. Variable naming is cryptic (KD, A1, A2, HA1, HA2) without clear explanatory context. The handle_401 method mixes multiple concerns: authentication logic, file position management, and request reconstruction. While the code uses good practices like per-thread state isolation and type annotations, the heavy use of inline comments explaining 'XXX not implemented yet' suggests incomplete design. The digest header construction string is monolithic and hard to follow. However, the overall flow is logical, methods are named clearly for their purposes, and the code maintains consistent formatting. The readability is moderate - understandable for experienced developers familiar with HTTP authentication, but challenging for others due to domain-specific complexity and dense implementation details.
Run 1
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, digest generation, response handling, and request setup, but digest generation combines several responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with moderate nesting in algorithm selection and retry handling. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type hints, and comments explain the authentication workflow; terse RFC variables, stale comments, and implicit thread-local state reduce clarity. Code length: Reasonable for the functionality, though repeated hash wrappers and verbose state access add avoidable length. Action granularity: Generally one action per line; assignment expressions introduce minor compression, and the standalone r.content access has a non-obvious side effect. Reading flow: Initialization and request processing follow a coherent sequence, but understanding the full lifecycle requires tracing callbacks and shared state across methods.
Run 2
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, digest construction, response handling, and request preparation, but digest construction combines several responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with early returns limiting complexity; nested hash helpers add some visual overhead. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, annotations, and protocol comments help, but abbreviated variables, implicit thread-local state, outdated comments, and placeholder logic obscure details. Code length: Generally purposeful, though repeated hashing helpers and the long digest-building method could be simplified. Action granularity: Almost every line performs one action, making individual operations easy to follow. Reading flow: Authentication proceeds in a coherent sequence, but repeated thread-local accesses, inline casts, and terse intermediate names interrupt the flow. Overall, readable and reasonably organized, with some maintainability and explanatory weaknesses.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, digest construction, response handling, and request preparation, though digest construction mixes several responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow conditionals and early returns keep complexity manageable; nested hash helpers add some depth. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type annotations, and protocol comments help, but terse variables such as s, r, KD, and respdig require interpretation. Stale comments mentioning lambdas and placeholder entdig logic reduce clarity. Code length: Repeated hash wrappers and the long digest-building method could be simplified or extracted. Action granularity: Nearly every line performs one action, making state changes and request handling easy to inspect. Reading flow: Authentication proceeds in a generally natural sequence, but repeated thread-local access, inline casts, long annotations, and implicit side effects such as accessing r.content interrupt the flow.