Sample
pyint-4f5dbeedc6fc-I13
Lower every eligible synchronous for loop to a while loop
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.067 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.616 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 139 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 12.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.409 | 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. | 9288.619 | −306.524 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 319 | +127.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.404 | −6.606 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -176.661 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-176.661) = 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. | 320 | −10.294 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 251 | +7.945 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 251 | −5.339 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 318.872 | +4.047 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 92.941 | +0.695 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.044 | +0.51 |
| 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. | 92.944 | −0.272 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -2.636 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.636) = 0.067.
| Score | 0.616 |
|---|
| Score | 139 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is a mix of clear docstrings and comments with some severe readability issues. The import section is organized but excessively long. The `resolve_redirects` method is deeply nested with a while loop containing multiple conditional blocks and try/except statements, making it hard to follow. Most critically, lines 110-120 use bizarre `__import__('builtins')` calls to iterate over a tuple, which is completely unnecessary and severely impairs clarity - a simple for loop would be far more readable. The code has some good practices like descriptive variable names and helpful comments explaining non-obvious behavior, but the redirect resolution logic is complex and dense. Action granularity is inconsistent - some lines do too much, others are unnecessarily verbose. The reading flow is disrupted by the nested loops and unclear control flow. While the individual methods have clear purposes, the implementation details in some sections reduce overall readability significantly.
Run 2
While the code has good docstrings, type hints, and logical class organization, it suffers from several readability issues. The `resolve_redirects` method is very long and mixes multiple responsibilities, making it hard to follow. It contains an oddly written loop using `__import__('builtins')` instead of a simple `for` loop, which obscures intent. There are many inline comments, some explaining non-obvious behavior, but the overall flow is disrupted by deep nesting and long conditional blocks. The method also performs mutation, network calls, and history tracking all in one place. Other methods like `should_strip_auth` and `rebuild_proxies` are reasonably clear. Overall, the code is maintainable for domain experts but not highly readable for general audiences.
Run 3
The code is well-structured with clear method separation and descriptive naming. Nesting is generally shallow, though the while loop in resolve_redirects has many sequential operations. Intent is clear through docstrings and comments. One notable issue is the bizarre use of __import__('builtins').iter() instead of a standard for loop, which is unnecessarily complex and hurts readability. Code length is appropriate for the complexity, and action granularity is mostly one action per line. Reading flow is logical, following redirect handling naturally. The redundant get_redirect_target call is explained in comments. Overall, high readability with minor stylistic concerns.
Run 1
Code Structure: Cohesive redirect-handling class with well-separated authentication, proxy, and method helpers, although resolve_redirects combines many responsibilities. Nesting: Generally shallow, but the redirect loop contains several branches and an unnecessarily nested manual iterator. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type annotations, docstrings, and protocol-related comments explain most behavior; abbreviated variables and unresolved annotation names slightly hinder understanding. Code length: Mostly justified by HTTP edge cases, but resolve_redirects is lengthy, and dynamic builtins imports plus explicit iterator handling needlessly replace a simple for loop. Action granularity: Almost every line performs one clear operation. Reading flow: Helpers and sequential processing stages provide a natural progression, but the manual iteration block interrupts otherwise idiomatic Python, and substantial mutable state requires careful tracking.
Run 2
Code Structure: Related redirect behavior is logically grouped in a mixin with focused helper methods, although resolve_redirects handles many responsibilities. Nesting: Most methods use shallow conditionals and early returns; the redirect loop introduces moderate nesting, worsened by an unnecessary nested iterator/exception loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type annotations, docstrings, and protocol-specific comments explain purpose well. Abbreviations such as req and resp are conventional, but undefined annotation references in the excerpt add uncertainty. Code length: Generally justified by redirect complexity, though resolve_redirects is lengthy and manually iterating headers through dynamic builtins imports is needlessly verbose. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with readable multiline calls and conditions. Reading flow: Redirect processing follows a coherent sequence from response cleanup through URL normalization, request rebuilding, and sending. However, the unusual loopIterator naming and repeated __import__ calls interrupt otherwise idiomatic Python and obscure a simple header-removal operation.
Run 3
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into redirect, authentication, proxy, and method helpers, but resolve_redirects handles many concerns. Nesting: Most methods are relatively flat, although the main redirect loop contains several nested branches and an unnecessarily nested iterator loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type annotations, docstrings, and protocol-specific comments explain behavior well; abbreviated variables and unresolved type references slightly reduce clarity. Code length: Much of the length reflects legitimate HTTP edge cases, but resolve_redirects is long, and manually iterating through headers using dynamic builtins imports is needlessly verbose. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with no dense chains of operations. Reading flow: Processing follows a sensible redirect lifecycle, supported by contextual comments, but the unconventional header-removal loop interrupts otherwise idiomatic Python and adds avoidable cognitive overhead.