Sample
pyint-1a772163c099-SRC
Unmodified source class
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.623 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.467 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 23 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.641 | 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. | 1173.778 | −38.735 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 31 | +12.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.692 | −7.038 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -24.503 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-24.503) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| 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. | 69.906 | +0.704 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 26 | +0.116 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 24 | +0.093 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.106 | −0.091 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 30.563 | +0.017 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.503 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.503) = 0.623.
| Score | 0.467 |
|---|
| Score | 23 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is simple and easy to understand. The class follows a clear structure: constructor and cache methods aligned with the base interface. Nesting is flat, with no conditionals or loops. Each method has a clear purpose, and action granularity is good—one action per line. The repeated validation call is concise but could be considered redundant; a helper or comment might clarify intent. Method names match the standard cache API, which improves reading flow for familiar Django developers. The constructor is minimal but currently ignores the 'host' parameter, which is slightly ambiguous. Overall, the code is clean and readable, though not self-documenting regarding the dummy behavior.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It follows a clear, consistent structure with each method performing a single, obvious action. Nesting is minimal; there are no conditional blocks or deep indentation levels. Intent is clear: it's a dummy cache implementation that validates keys but performs no real caching. Methods are concise and mirror the BaseCache interface, which improves both clarity and maintainability. Action granularity is excellent—each method contains at most two simple lines. The reading flow is natural and predictable, with methods ordered logically. Minor deductions could be made for potential redundancy (many similar methods), but this is typical of interface implementation. Overall, the code is easy to follow and understand at a glance.
Run 3
The code is clean and easy to read. Each method is short, flat, and performs a single logical action—validating the key and returning a result or doing nothing (clear). The class structure is straightforward, inheriting BaseCache, and the intent of a dummy cache is obvious. Naming is clear and consistent. Minor deductions: a few methods are identical in shape, so there is slight repetition; also, some methods discard the key validation result, but this is consistent with the dummy behavior. Overall, the code is highly readable, concise, and well organized.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into small, clearly separated cache operations. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no conditionals or loops. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and standard cache method names communicate a no-op cache implementation, though a short docstring could clarify the deliberately unused parameters and differing return values. Code length: The implementation is concise; repeated key validation is straightforward and appropriate for independent methods. Action granularity: Each line performs a single action, making behavior easy to inspect. Reading flow: Consistent signatures and validation patterns create a natural, predictable flow. Minor documentation and spacing improvements would make it nearly ideal.
Run 2
Code Structure: Methods are logically organized within a single, focused cache class. Nesting: Completely flat method bodies make the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and standard cache method names clearly suggest a no-op implementation, though a brief class docstring would clarify intentional unused parameters and return values. Code length: Concise, with minimal implementation and necessary interface repetition. Action granularity: Each line performs one clear action. Reading flow: Consistent signatures and repeated validation patterns create a predictable, natural flow.
Run 3
Code Structure: A single, well-organized class groups related cache operations into clearly separated methods. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and conventional method names communicate a no-op cache implementation; a brief docstring could clarify the intentional unused parameters and fixed return values. Code length: The implementation is concise, and repeated key validation keeps each method self-contained. Action granularity: Each line performs one action. Reading flow: Consistent signatures, formatting, and validation patterns make the code easy to scan and understand.