Sample
pyint-c79e121e4e51-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
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 clearly organized and easy to follow. Each method has a single, obvious purpose (e.g., `add`, `get`, `set`), and actions are generally one per line, keeping the flow natural. Nesting is minimal, and the class structure is clean. The repeated call to `make_and_validate_key` is consistent and predictable. The `__init__` method is slightly redundant because it only calls `super` without adding behavior, and the `host` parameter is unused, creating minor ambiguity. However, the code remains concise and readable, with clear intent. The score is slightly reduced from 18 due to the redundant `__init__` and the scattered `return` values that could benefit from minor documentation, but overall it is highly maintainable and understandable.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, logical structure with a single class extending BaseCache. Each method is flat, with no nesting, and performs one primary action. Naming is self-documenting, and the intent of a dummy cache implementation is obvious. Code length is minimal and appropriate, with no unnecessary repetition beyond the required interface. The only minor issue is that `__init__` accepts `host` but ignores it, which slightly obscures intent. Overall, reading flow is natural and consistent.
Run 3
The code is highly readable due to its simple, flat structure and clear intent: it implements a dummy cache backend. Each method performs one logical action—validating the key—and then returns a default value. The nesting is minimal, and the reading flow is natural, with methods ordered logically (add, get, set, touch, delete, has_key, clear). The code is concise but not overly terse; it avoids unnecessary complexity and maintains consistent formatting. Minor deductions are made because some methods have an empty body after validation (e.g., set) with no explicit return, leaving intent slightly implicit. Additionally, the __init__ method adds nothing beyond calling super, which could be omitted for brevity. Overall, the code is easy to follow and maintain.
Run 1
Code Structure: A single, logically organized class groups standard cache operations into small methods. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and familiar method names clearly suggest a no-op cache; however, a brief docstring could explain the differing return values and unused parameters. Code length: The implementation is concise, with repetition serving consistent key validation rather than adding unnecessary complexity. Action granularity: Each line performs one action, keeping validation and returns distinct. Reading flow: Consistent signatures, spacing, and method patterns make the class easy to scan from initialization through individual operations to clearing.
Run 2
Code Structure: A single cohesive class organizes cache operations into clearly separated methods. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and familiar cache method names convey a no-op backend; a brief docstring could clarify why validation occurs despite no storage and why parameters such as host are unused. Code length: The implementation is concise, with repetition appropriate to the cache interface. Action granularity: Each line performs one clear action. Reading flow: Consistent signatures, spacing, and validation patterns make the code easy to scan from initialization through cache operations.
Run 3
Code Structure: A single, logically organized class with clearly separated cache operations. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and familiar method names convey a no-op cache implementation; a short docstring could clarify deliberately unused parameters and return behavior. Code length: Concise, with minimal boilerplate; repeated key validation is appropriate for individual interface methods. Action granularity: Each line performs one action, making behavior easy to scan. Reading flow: Consistent signatures and method bodies create a natural, predictable progression through the cache API.