Sample
pyint-0a511eff9a22-I13
Lower every eligible synchronous for loop to a while loop
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.207 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.335 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 100 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 15.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.443 | 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. | 235 | +94 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.356 | −6.534 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -213.773 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-213.773) = 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. | 236 | −7.32 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 210 | +6.527 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 210 | −4.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 234.909 | +2.874 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 85.907 | +0.582 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.062 | +0.342 |
| 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. | 86.949 | −0.018 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.341 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.341) = 0.207.
| Score | 0.335 |
|---|
| Score | 100 |
|---|
Run 1
The code demonstrates strong readability through clear organization, logical structure, and good use of Django patterns. Imports are organized by module, class methods are well-grouped, and field definitions clearly express intent. Nesting is reasonable, with the deepest branches in `user_change_password` being manageable. Most methods have focused responsibilities and explanatory comments where needed. Action granularity is mostly one-action-per-line, though some complex expressions could benefit from extraction. The main readability challenges are long methods like `user_change_password` with multiple responsibilities and dense conditional logic. Docstrings and comments effectively clarify non-obvious behaviors like the add permission restrictions and form submission validation. Overall, this is production-ready Django admin code that balances completeness with clarity, losing some points for method length and complex control flow in password management.
Run 2
The code is generally readable due to logical structure, clear naming, and separation of concerns. It follows Django admin conventions and uses meaningful method names (e.g., `_add_view`, `user_change_password`). Nesting is reasonable, but the `user_change_password` method is long and contains multiple conditional branches, slightly reducing readability. Action granularity is mostly good, though some blocks combine multiple actions (e.g., validation, message, redirect). The reading flow is natural at the top but becomes denser in larger methods. Concise comments explain non-obvious logic, which helps clarity. Overall, it is well-organized but could benefit from extracting helper methods for the password change flow.
Run 3
The code is generally well-structured with logical grouping of imports, class attributes, and methods. It uses Django's admin conventions effectively. However, readability is reduced by long methods like `user_change_password` and `_add_view`, which contain multiple conditional branches and inline comments that could be extracted into smaller helper methods. The `fieldsets` and `add_fieldsets` definitions are clear but take up many lines. Some complex conditionals like `valid_submission` could benefit from clearer naming or extraction. The code is not deeply nested, but several methods have lengthy bodies. The docstrings and comments are helpful. Overall, the code follows Django patterns, but method length and mixed concerns inside some methods prevent a higher score.
Run 1
Code Structure: Well organized into declarative admin configuration and focused override methods, although user_change_password combines validation, persistence, messaging, redirects, and rendering. Nesting: Most methods are flat with early exits; the POST/form-validation branch introduces moderate nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, standard Django conventions, and explanatory security comments make the purpose clear, though framework-specific APIs require Django familiarity. Code length: Configuration and context dictionaries justify much of the length, but the password-change method is lengthy and could benefit from helper extraction. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with multiline expressions formatted consistently. Reading flow: Configuration precedes behavior, and request handling follows a natural sequence from permission checks to processing and rendering. Long comments and nested redirect construction occasionally interrupt the flow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Configuration is grouped at the class level, and distinct admin behaviors are separated into well-named methods. Nesting: Most methods are shallow and use early exits, but user_change_password contains several nested conditions and a lengthy redirect expression. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, docstrings, and security-focused comments explain the purpose well; some details require Django familiarity. Code length: Most verbosity comes from necessary configuration and context dictionaries, although the password-change method combines validation, persistence, messaging, redirects, and rendering and could be split into helpers. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with readable multiline formatting for complex expressions. Reading flow: Imports, configuration, and methods follow a coherent progression, and the request handling flows naturally from checks through processing to rendering. Deep formatting and framework-specific conventions occasionally interrupt scanning.
Run 3
Code Structure: Configuration is grouped at the class level, and methods separate form selection, permissions, URL routing, and response handling logically. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, but user_change_password contains several nested branches and a lengthy redirect expression. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, standard Django conventions, and comments explaining security and workflow decisions make the purpose clear; framework knowledge is still needed. Code length: Most verbosity comes from necessary configuration and context dictionaries, although the password-change method is long and could be split into helpers. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with consistent formatting for multiline expressions. Reading flow: Imports, configuration, and methods form a coherent progression, and early returns simplify several paths. The combination of validation, persistence, messaging, redirects, and template setup in one method slightly interrupts the otherwise natural flow.