Sample
pyint-e7d0884686e7-I12
Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local variables
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 | 16.67 | 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 has a clear, logical structure with a simple class inheriting from BaseCache and implementing the expected interface. Nesting is minimal and flat. Each method has a clear intent, mimicking real cache operations while validating keys. Code length is concise; methods are not unnecessarily long. Action granularity is good, with one significant action per line (validation, return). Reading flow is natural and predictable, following the standard cache API method order. Minor deductions: the unused `host` parameter, `key`, `value`, and `timeout` parameters in some methods could be slightly confusing, and `clear` is empty, but these are appropriate for a dummy cache implementation.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It follows a consistent structure, with each method performing a single, clear action — validating the key and returning a dummy result. Nesting is non-existent, and the intent of each method is unambiguous. The naming is descriptive and follows Django conventions. The use of method parameters aligns with the base class, making the implementation easy to follow. The only minor drawback is the redundant __init__ method, which simply calls super with the same arguments and could be omitted without affecting clarity. Overall, the code is concise, flat, and easy to scan.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into small, clearly separated cache-interface methods. Nesting: There is no nested control flow, making each method easy to follow. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and conventional method names communicate a no-op cache implementation, although a brief docstring could clarify the intentional return values and unused parameters. Code length: The implementation is concise; repeated key validation is straightforward and appropriate for independent methods. Action granularity: Each line performs a single action. Reading flow: Consistent signatures and the repeated validate-then-return pattern provide a natural, predictable reading experience.
Run 2
Code Structure: A single, clearly organized class groups related cache operations into small methods. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: DummyCache and familiar cache-method names communicate a no-op implementation, though a short docstring could clarify the deliberately unused parameters and return values. Code length: Concise throughout; repeated key validation is appropriate for the interface. Action granularity: Each line performs one action, keeping behavior easy to inspect. Reading flow: Consistent signatures and validation-first method bodies create a predictable, natural flow.
Run 3
Code Structure: A single 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 convey a no-op cache implementation, though a brief docstring would clarify the deliberately unused parameters and return behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise; repeated key validation is appropriate for independent interface methods. Action granularity: Each line performs one straightforward action. Reading flow: Consistent signatures and method bodies make the code easy to scan, moving naturally from initialization through cache operations to clearing.