Sample
pyint-b01167fa013f-I10
Deterministically remove some optional blank lines and bracketed line breaks
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.006 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.096 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 100 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 5 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 13.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.27 | 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. | 9397.215 | −310.108 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 194 | +77.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.343 | −6.514 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -230.153 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-230.153) = 0.
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. | 248.99 | −6.881 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 195 | −5.868 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 169 | +5.108 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 169 | −3.457 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 248.985 | +3.213 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 193.908 | +2.301 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.061 | +0.344 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -5.17 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-5.17) = 0.006.
| Score | 0.096 |
|---|
| Score | 100 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is severely unreadable due to inconsistent and bizarre indentation throughout. Tuple/list definitions for fieldsets, add_fieldsets, get_urls, reverse, and context dictionaries have random spacing and line breaks that break visual flow. Many lines combine multiple actions or are split arbitrarily, undermining action granularity. While the underlying logic (Django UserAdmin) is familiar and docstrings are clear, the formatting obscures intent and structure. Deeply nested permission checks and long method bodies add complexity, but the primary failure is the chaotic whitespace, which makes even simple assignments hard to parse. Refactoring with standard formatting, extracting helper methods, and flattening conditionals would dramatically improve readability.
Run 2
The code exhibits severe readability issues across all criteria. Structure is tangled due to inconsistent and excessive indentation in fieldsets, add_fieldsets, and method calls. Nesting is deep in methods like user_change_password, with multiple nested conditionals and error-handling paths. Intent is obscured by dense blocks and scattered inline comments. Length is excessive for what could be more concise logic, and action granularity is poor—many lines contain multiple logical actions or broken continuations. Reading flow is severely disrupted by the erratic alignment and lack of visual separation between class methods. While the code follows Django conventions functionally, its formatting undermines clarity, making it difficult to parse and maintain.
Run 3
This code is challenging to read due to inconsistent formatting, excessive indentation, and poor visual separation. The imports are logical but have awkward multi-line alignment. The fieldsets and add_fieldsets definitions suffer from severe indentation issues, with closing brackets misaligned and inconsistent spacing. Method bodies contain unnecessary line breaks and deeply indented multi-line arguments, especially in `user_change_password` and `lookup_allowed`. The `_add_view` method has good comments explaining business logic, but the surrounding code's poor structural formatting negates clarity. Reading flow is disrupted by erratic line lengths and vertical misalignment. Methods are logically organized and have clear names, but the physical layout requires significant effort to follow. Several lines concatenate multiple conceptually distinct operations (e.g., combining form validation with conditional logic). While the code's intent is understandable, its presentation is markedly inconsistent with Django's typical formatting standards.
Run 1
1. Code Structure: Configuration and behavior are logically organized within a Django admin class, with distinct methods for individual workflows. Missing blank lines weaken visual separation. 2. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, but password handling has several nested conditionals and complex expressions. 3. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, familiar Django conventions, and explanatory comments make permissions and password workflows understandable. 4. Code length: Generally justified by functionality, although the password-change method is long and some comments are verbose. 5. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action, but multiple configuration entries crowded onto single lines reduce scanability. 6. Reading flow: Execution order is coherent, yet irregular spacing, awkward line breaks, and densely packed dictionaries and tuples repeatedly interrupt reading.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports, configuration, and specialized admin methods are logically organized, but inconsistent spacing and missing method separators obscure boundaries. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with moderate nesting in password-change handling; early returns help limit complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, familiar Django patterns, and explanatory comments make permissions and password workflows understandable. Code length: Generally justified by functionality, though verbose comments and a long password-change method increase reading effort. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action, but several configuration entries share lines, weakening visual separation. Reading flow: The sequence from validation through saving, messaging, and rendering is natural, but irregular indentation, excessive inline whitespace, and awkwardly wrapped expressions repeatedly interrupt scanning.
Run 3
Code Structure: The class logically groups admin configuration and workflow methods, though the password-change method combines several responsibilities. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, but POST handling introduces multiple nested conditions. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, recognizable Django conventions, and explanatory security comments make the purpose clear. Code length: Generally justified by the functionality, although lengthy comments and the large password-change method increase reading effort. Action granularity: Most executable statements perform one action per line, but multiple configuration entries share lines, reducing scanability. Reading flow: Method order and control flow are coherent, but inconsistent whitespace, awkward line breaks, crowded dictionary entries, and missing blank lines between some methods substantially disrupt visual readability.