{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D3","name":"God Classes","shortDescription":{"text":"God Classes"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D3"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D5","name":"Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D5"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D8","name":"Code Coverage","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Coverage"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D8"},{"id":"D9","name":"Test Distribution","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Distribution"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D9"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D17","name":"Explicit Debt","shortDescription":{"text":"Explicit Debt"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D17"},{"id":"D19","name":"Documentation Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D19"},{"id":"D20","name":"ADR Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"ADR Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D20"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"]}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AX3","name":"Project dependency cycles","shortDescription":{"text":"Project dependency cycles"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX3"},{"id":"AX4","name":"Dependency direction","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency direction"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX4"},{"id":"AX9","name":"CQS / query purity","shortDescription":{"text":"CQS / query purity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX9"},{"id":"DM4","name":"Rich vs anemic domain model","shortDescription":{"text":"Rich vs anemic domain model"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM4"},{"id":"DM5","name":"Encapsulated state","shortDescription":{"text":"Encapsulated state"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM5"},{"id":"DM6","name":"Domain \u2194 infrastructure boundary","shortDescription":{"text":"Domain \u2194 infrastructure boundary"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM6"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P2","name":"Observability","shortDescription":{"text":"Observability"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P2"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"X10","name":"Duplicated predicate","shortDescription":{"text":"Duplicated predicate"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X10"},{"id":"X32","name":"Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly","shortDescription":{"text":"Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X32"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EventType.from (cyclomatic 65): EventType.from has cyclomatic complexity 65 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform \u2014 the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own \u2014 a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/EventType/EventType.swift"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"20b298f6dd06cc9c249676c38500400b5ec8df4a7523615931fc7fa8c3d29931"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemChartEventView.eventCounts (cyclomatic 52): SystemChartEventView.eventCounts has cyclomatic complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Chart Views/EventChartViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":70}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"464392709e77cb1bb7671d45424dd656a01b8e00494906346ac9ba69128b368d"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FilterView.swift.isEventFiltered (cyclomatic 35): FilterView.swift.isEventFiltered has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":35}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f20d7aed68af540a0cefeecedc8afd11a7fa010e415ef6f87aaa172077facfaa"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TCCModifyEvent.init (cyclomatic 33): TCCModifyEvent.init has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform \u2014 the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own \u2014 a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/TCC Events/tcc_modify/TCCModifyEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2c6c8ebf328e106f0336cfdd56143ed5d1cefa4d8efe1b97f504f594295f6461"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemRCCorrelatedEventsView.body (cyclomatic 26): SystemRCCorrelatedEventsView.body has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":200}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7169d800a8df55b172c12041a1af3ee68279b7ab793a571a3c02358cf86777ec"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.body (cyclomatic 24): SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.body has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exec/SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":78}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e03733e33d1e0478426152ecd574ea9105af1a4f623f40cbca1de9aae9ea20ef"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EventView.body (cyclomatic 19): EventView.body has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/ContentView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":223}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e71848fa16de14a0fce3ec7bb70d1582d3300a7a1de460ca1bd7653c5014e810"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Process.init (cyclomatic 19): Process.init has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform \u2014 the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own \u2014 a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Process/Process.swift"},"region":{"startLine":66}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fbb4ad6ccfb7f41f2f13792633720ec4a928bd7e7b1b736991734edc3eb14234"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ProcessExecEventNameView.body (cyclomatic 18): ProcessExecEventNameView.body has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ebccd146d3f1d6e48fb19f8619cff752ddc1f16f5860b63d5140d32972214af2"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ProcessExecEvent.init (cyclomatic 18): ProcessExecEvent.init has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Process Events/exec/ProcessExecEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f86e6412399df6b410502ca4820a0ecae78a874359ab7dcb90fcffdb70ca525d"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EventDetailsView.body (cyclomatic 16): EventDetailsView.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift"},"region":{"startLine":161}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b16be995850ad00bade64606287f5dc75617f79ee664f718b87db0f9d6b64975"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FilterView.body (cyclomatic 16): FilterView.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":172}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8a39980e2072d310a173f06624e18104cc81843f56394d6fc84bf1d696dc2b40"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ESProcess.init (cyclomatic 16): ESProcess.init has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Artifacts/Process/ESProcess\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fdba084039a5d3a487efa085f3b0232c1648e9c1d1b8a0e1304bc0bdf65e9d11"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FilterView.swift.isEventFiltered (cognitive 66): FilterView.swift.isEventFiltered has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (57 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 32). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language\u0027s equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":35}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2f824e23f810e9b9b32544ceac6dcbda900c4a2d672c9fc130353c6719f8ab23"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemChartEventView.eventCounts (cognitive 51): SystemChartEventView.eventCounts has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 51. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Chart Views/EventChartViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":70}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e314332df5f70b1b334920532b18f45f47f00873035ead0795a694a84af1f281"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemRCCorrelatedEventsView.body (cognitive 41): SystemRCCorrelatedEventsView.body has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (25 pts), ternaries 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":200}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cddcab732de54132b43abc54a80f3ad617e43fa08532a562d9fa818f832a6401"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EventDetailsView.body (cognitive 32): EventDetailsView.body has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (29 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift"},"region":{"startLine":161}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"643b97d19896c00f293899aab6bcfbdbaa91aa7519b485cdb3bb3209097a6266"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemEventsTableView.body (cognitive 29): SystemEventsTableView.body has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), ternaries 3 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Unified/SystemEventsTableViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":39}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"369e743294b22a7d246946b46b57463fab11a66b6b716840c3efaeacb3e45a0e"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.body (cognitive 29): SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.body has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exec/SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":78}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d5f003c806032d4680d0b047a6f07f6319f59857c71da686cf7d6f414b4df334"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ProcessExecEvent.init (cognitive 29): ProcessExecEvent.init has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (25 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Process Events/exec/ProcessExecEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5d9054e9d11b74e528d76b8837bbc2ca2e446ba25a8ab1105ff62276f5cc86f7"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ProcessExecEventNameView.body (cognitive 27): ProcessExecEventNameView.body has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (24 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"550b98c2d76b02b06b87697ef66f73ba850c509b477d1a7d25478624ee8d7610"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EventType.from (cognitive 26): EventType.from has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), ternaries 4 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction \u2014 a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full \u2014 so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/EventType/EventType.swift"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6a8f5a13ba96aa8b0ad4a28bee8c62a0d65cafe0b6dd2ee1d5e540c6fd13424f"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EndpointSecurityManager.surfaceEvent (cognitive 22): EndpointSecurityManager.surfaceEvent has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":101}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8e78353c87cb96fffc13e65f77a0697be0e6f98fe280d816b2f2dfe5b88bc59c"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"CoreDataController.insertSystemEvents (cognitive 21): CoreDataController.insertSystemEvents has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":70}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"641e266df4665b7ffa9932b0edec97b2b8fbf3f4d62de6556e8ca7c5e91f8137"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FilterView.body (cognitive 18): FilterView.body has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (14 pts), ternaries 4 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":172}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"81d0a761c156b3846e02d2095d4df9ef0a8afef7d8bf6f8fc323bc3bae83ef08"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"AuthJudgeProcsView.body (cognitive 18): AuthJudgeProcsView.body has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":33}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ee190c04b0fb9c206f740f57b5c10186fc1f2a329e1c7c3224417538db082455"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EndpointSecurityManager.mutePath (cognitive 16): EndpointSecurityManager.mutePath has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (9 pts), loops 1 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":163}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"03d99fb3fe17e89a24e800b084afa74ede53beb16d6fd2035d2c4790dd87da80"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"EndpointSecurityManager.unmutePath (cognitive 16): EndpointSecurityManager.unmutePath has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (9 pts), loops 1 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":201}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8f345be457605ada25f470bdb3fec461c8fefd7641be71115a244df859506f59"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ESProcess.init (cognitive 16): ESProcess.init has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Artifacts/Process/ESProcess\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1781742c0001a16d0a40872b7882bbd36990af19b1290a85020a5ecf49dcc46c"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemBTMAddMetadataView.body (cognitive 16): SystemBTMAddMetadataView.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_add/SystemBTMAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fa58863f2f0c1f5cbe89e9745f055bfdaf38274ca7227f5f9eb96dc24a1fd522"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.body (cognitive 16): SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_remove/SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"55b7da3f4d8ac44ae6d518b0af2f5dfdbcdbb9d0219f37eef7bbfa2da70876d0"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FunctionTooLong: ESEventsEnumerated.swift.esEventTypeIDToEventType: FunctionTooLong \u2014 esEventTypeIDToEventType runs 300 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 200 over it, 3.00\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ES Translation/ESEventsEnumerated.swift"},"region":{"startLine":163}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e13750a08c00708e04e7b08cc2dbf3e34b114bf80050967beeb2bb3559477f7"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FunctionTooLong: ESEventsEnumerated.swift.eventTypeToString: FunctionTooLong \u2014 eventTypeToString runs 300 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 200 over it, 3.00\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ES Translation/ESEventsEnumerated.swift"},"region":{"startLine":466}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7230455828c7f4dce27bb27903cbeffc4167cc5b1d21263593f4139f30cdec31"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FunctionTooLong: ESEventsEnumerated.swift.eventStringToType: FunctionTooLong \u2014 eventStringToType runs 300 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 200 over it, 3.00\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ES Translation/ESEventsEnumerated.swift"},"region":{"startLine":770}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"701b5622967e35927b678171993dff4d4aa2eae2bd829f992f27ccf4286d1c16"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: ESEventType.init: MethodTooLong \u2014 init runs 213 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 113 over it, 2.13\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/EventType/ESEventType\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":115}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c3f0a0462a0de8ce11d173937b8b66cdf0e75cd4b562820284ec940270a7fd0e"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FileTooLong: ES Translation/ESEventsEnumerated.swift: FileTooLong \u2014 1050 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 550 over it, 2.10\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ES Translation/ESEventsEnumerated.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"eb391b8cb4e6cf576bb6ee00616df9e2f888af93eefdd38a11da03a317e2b088"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: FilterView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 205 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 105 over it, 2.05\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":172}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2841fdcaef5a579539d74ebfca72a7f15e5566d415a31fde6d0de9a2fdea0c8a"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 193 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 93 over it, 1.93\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exec/SystemTargetExecProcMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":78}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1153416b73a5253b40722c033fd2e97c12f5b9816f90bf0ec0258e4ee19bf169"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: MuteSet.\u0060default\u0060: MethodTooLong \u2014 \u0060default\u0060 runs 180 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 80 over it, 1.80\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/Utilities/Path Muting/MuteSet.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e96c18653d238a3b988b32455728cd411bcd984e7aa1bebe7eaba189bd934356"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: EventSpecificViewsProvider.init: MethodTooLong \u2014 init runs 166 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.66\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/EventViewProvider.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9a1e2fe3491911d8377b8c2fab83f9970292145cbe068735f0d9843ff848b279"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TooManyMethods: EndpointSecurityManager: TooManyMethods \u2014 44 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bdc7db964f711ebcd5092fab13d7b172f1ee85b2e067e47024c606cdef20b1e8"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: ProjectSutroApp.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 127 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.27\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/ProjectSutroApp.swift"},"region":{"startLine":77}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"536fbe6fcf882387aa7a39d368b1ca0f989580868ca1f1bb1466c2f2ce698a52"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FunctionTooLong: ODHelpers.swift.decodeODErrorCode: FunctionTooLong \u2014 decodeODErrorCode runs 126 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.26\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Directory/ODHelpers.swift"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5abc5ccd94fd50bec445dd1ac6c26f138f870bd4b1324fd98a76d784a9c2c464"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FileTooLong: XPC/RCXPC.swift: FileTooLong \u2014 596 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 64% of them inside a single declaration: RCXPCConnection (121-741). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 96 over it, 1.19\u00D7 the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body \u2014 the parts that share the same inputs and are named together \u2014 into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"635d65d0f2392ca4c661b3ec9015a69a4d9f5f5b2fe63cee4cfcde3296f8be2e"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: EventView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 114 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.14\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/ContentView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":223}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"aa38357f8c38942594d0be2b2568858630ecbc134518ddd63bea64eb491d0394"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TooManyMethods: RCXPCConnection: TooManyMethods \u2014 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":121}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6be4796de9c27dfbb9a5632f5225bf51289ed1809d6a7f848a5a70367d7f2053"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: SystemBTMAddMetadataView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_add/SystemBTMAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"49fd38a608bbfab27a2cf8ca462e4258b3df86c2a97f71999c65c8cce60f7298"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FunctionTooLong: ESTranslation.swift.eventStringToImage: FunctionTooLong \u2014 eventStringToImage runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ES Translation/ESTranslation.swift"},"region":{"startLine":85}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"697479dda0caa392e46d142cfa0010a1373e313f198b3472e61942e6370a75b7"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_remove/SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"18d3def8e3b2e467f8c549893fc3eef042a14522322b026efbe579f59ebffe15"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: EndpointSecurityManager.requestEventSubscriptions: MethodTooLong \u2014 requestEventSubscriptions runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bc5047df88034a2f718913cc5ce898727207fd4e6f6c5f182c78a4bbc7ea3298"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 26 shared lines): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift:54-116 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/create_group/OpenDirectoryCreateGroupEvent.swift:47-87 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/create_user/OpenDirectoryCreateUserEvent.swift:43-85 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift:49-104 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift:49-104 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/modify_password/OpenDirectoryModifyPasswordEvent.swift:31-80 \u2014 These 6 members are variants of one another: a block of 26 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":54}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"51a2afa1ac7433271323f21936c183b38a17332ea8f7fa4f02a3f29a73cf0fcd"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 26 shared lines): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:344-383 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:386-425 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:520-557 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:562-599 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:609-648 \u2014 These 5 members are variants of one another: a block of 26 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":344}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1decffa02c8cea9c257171d9314144d459ce624fdd8c5fcc57786949960d4d47"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 48 shared lines): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:19-75 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:19-73 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:19-74 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:23-77 \u2014 These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 48 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b68b768b96751b70cf3bbfc96e47f7fa155d4bc67c00d0b176f7633c317516e6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 33 shared lines): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:21-119 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:19-117 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:21-133 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:20-124 \u2014 These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 33 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9ad930c687f82d922395d93f017354c1eae8bec8b0f9d29e00bae73f1f4f97c6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileMetadataSystemEventViews.swift:21-44 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileSystemEventViews.swift:24-71 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/LaunchItemSystemEventViews.swift:22-63 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/MMAPSystemEventsViews.swift:46-78 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/SystemFileDupEventTableView.swift:24-44 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/SystemFileRenameEventTableView.swift:23-69 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/SystemLoginEventTableViews.swift:24-45 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/XProtectSystemEventViews.swift:23-69 \u2014 These 8 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 8 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 8 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileMetadataSystemEventViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fcc5fda309e19988161251f82fdfe1c0160fd767f3653e813f5ae9a752878d80"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:19-38 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateGroupEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:19-35 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateUserEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:24-40 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:19-36 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:18-35 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODModifyPasswordEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:18-35 \u2014 These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3e45e73229c0810938b08814f0479619096a5b703448541b88b365ea75846c11"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:42-57 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateGroupEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:39-51 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateUserEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:45-57 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:40-53 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:39-52 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODModifyPasswordEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:39-52 \u2014 These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"747ae7667d5a100a089c1633852e4b5a60bdd3458337e71c41ffd504440b0942"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (152 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_add/SystemBTMAddMetadataView.swift:40-191 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_remove/SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.swift:33-184 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_add/SystemBTMAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_remove/SystemBTMRemoveMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: 93% of the shorter file\u0027s lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it \u2014 treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_add/SystemBTMAddMetadataView.swift:40\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Service Management/launch_item_add/SystemBTMAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":40}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"77aacf7a57c99365f0d4ea44cb8e8c4a084faeb77d4186dcaa88d391e0e6e939"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (35\u201337 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:25-61 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:27-61 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:26-61 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 99 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:25\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:63\u0060 calls \u0060padding\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:63\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7ae2df069da828885f9f03117cc475b617758a6a6d1b5b725f0b63451ae0173f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (34 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift:104-137 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift:141-174 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":104}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5e0e606164c23f9a9d632ce1b55fc3a9fa8ddf9695d3161833618b211ad6d9e6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (31\u201333 lines \u00D7 4): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:23-55 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:23-53 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:23-54 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:27-57 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:23\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6dc9ee52e2e1228f5abeab63757e7263c2993079f6cfb1e497c538809cf0f300"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (32 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift:70-101 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift:70-101 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift:70\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":70}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d34a4f34c9afdbfd379ceee8c37f5358cddd51c06000f99d3983de4d0d97780e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (30 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:45-74 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:78-107 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:45\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":45}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6bfcacb002ffc7d40bbad6663e5184b8d8d36ed8b063d2ff7651cab0161b2b8d"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (29 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:241-269 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:286-314 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:241\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":241}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7458328d60a3934915bdd8b46bfcdfe9fb3ac5b1bbb02dfd3e3ac7069831477a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (28 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:24-51 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift:24-51 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setextattr/SystemSetExtattrMetadataView.swift:24-51 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:24\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift:52\u0060 calls \u0060lineLimit\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:52\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f55d037dad4f07ad609ff5fb1369d93266435f40bbb6dc573d3ca782984ae788"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (28 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:50-77 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift:32-59 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 97 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:50\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":50}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"84f43260f42f5d56b7579d376187c0a8c2e9426f251c0930edb7aed7c8627629"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (25 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:188-212 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:190-214 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:188\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":188}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"22c703e624f658e66374325363bb95aa4b7751c7969fe8fc07ce147466f2373b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (23 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift:23-45 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWUnlockMetadataView.swift:23-45 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWUnlockMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 72 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift:23\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7a5297986875030f2945ff672cdfdc306d0a7adca6181e70140f2837a8b7780c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (23 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemAddEvent.swift:37-59 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemRemoveEvent.swift:42-64 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemAddEvent.swift:62\u0060 calls \u0060toString\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemRemoveEvent.swift:65\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemAddEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":37}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c7b3ad218a07b0d67d0ed60137c8d041f6f7ae9c27a5e26f5cfd0178dfb45840"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (22 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemInitatingProcessView.swift:26-47 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/SystemTargetProcessView.swift:171-192 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemInitatingProcessView.swift:26\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/SystemTargetProcessView.swift:195\u0060 calls \u0060Divider\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemInitatingProcessView.swift:49\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemInitatingProcessView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c6ad324deb19cd3f7c2c4864613a86ade3e44c0167f77bf787cb6e9f31f3f3de"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (22 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_add/ESLaunchItemAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:26-47 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_remove/ESLaunchItemRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:28-49 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_add/ESLaunchItemAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6047ce4d5d7bbbbe4d05d94d148efbb5531dbb9d9ae5f107f089e7a4ad528888"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (21 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift:44-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift:49-69 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift:44\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":44}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7d4980045e3b718af37f2cc79bf4de053a4d08cde515ce9950a9dd945e029042"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (21 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:23-43 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:24-44 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 87 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:23\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:45\u0060 calls \u0060lineLimit\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:46\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5780cadcb39beb5957106f197512b50eccd2a419d0c001f914dad2240a502171"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (20 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:19-38 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift:19-38 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 97 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:19\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"188073be8fa66eaa7bc868be3eb594eca8587cc63af09c9cee64c7110c319be4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (19\u201320 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:65-83 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:51-70 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":65}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"79676898213baddf790ff2236af9c38e7b01e8f5e47b6f680019b5ca84c4e337"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18\u201320 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/SonomaStartButton.swift:54-73 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/VenturaStartButton.swift:54-71 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/SonomaStartButton.swift:54\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/SonomaStartButton.swift"},"region":{"startLine":54}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a671fb91897bd69e14a527546b6140b63a625606a26f08d5ae0e6d4893367a4c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (19 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:54-72 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:79-97 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":54}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"50a1fb1385250f687fc2954522d04ce17f29ddfbd697b74d11c9e397a071cbea"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (19 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Settings Views/EventSubscriptionsSettingsView.swift:50-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Settings Views/Muting/PathMutingSettingsView.swift:159-177 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Settings Views/EventSubscriptionsSettingsView.swift:50\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Settings Views/EventSubscriptionsSettingsView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":50}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"66d0944a57004cf5f9e8351a3483b31e2c3de7d92ef66d575c8cf10fa92f38a0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (19 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift:212-230 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift:242-260 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift:212\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":212}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"48c7d7943ce2bea7c1787d599fa6e2a258d031c183f0730d5bc61522aa947335"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18 lines \u00D7 4): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift:118-135 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/bind/SystemUIPCBindMetadataView.swift:65-82 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/connect/SystemUIPCConnectMetadataView.swift:74-91 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift:186-203 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/bind/SystemUIPCBindMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift:118\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":118}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2836154601d482f260e299577e1b85bdb02135979d9ce09f42a1a4b7061c53fe"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/OpenSSH Events/login/SSHLoginEvent.swift:80-97 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/OpenSSH Events/logout/OpenSSHLogoutEvent.swift:38-55 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/OpenSSH Events/login/SSHLoginEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":80}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c1c871f27156f68128626a25807ff0841192ae853d7ae00463545700e6252b48"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 7): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Code Signing/SystemCodeSigningInvalidatedMetadataView.swift:20-36 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/remote_thread_create/SystemRemoteThreadCreateMetadataView.swift:97-113 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift:76-92 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift:79-95 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/signal/SystemProcessSignalMetadataView.swift:87-103 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift:85-101 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Task Port/SystemGetTaskMetadataView.swift:44-60 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/remote_thread_create/SystemRemoteThreadCreateMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Code Signing/SystemCodeSigningInvalidatedMetadataView.swift:20\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Code Signing/SystemCodeSigningInvalidatedMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"90666ad33050444b34357dbf3849849311a1109138dd4323dfb4d715f90e4a1c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16\u201317 lines \u00D7 6): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift:63-78 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/create_group/OpenDirectoryCreateGroupEvent.swift:56-71 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/create_user/OpenDirectoryCreateUserEvent.swift:53-69 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift:58-73 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift:58-73 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/modify_password/OpenDirectoryModifyPasswordEvent.swift:40-55 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":63}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"235c8dd8ab492727adfa1ea303cbaca63d1c371755c7f416279f728929d49f90"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:322-338 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:439-455 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:467-483 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:322\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The \u0060return\u0060 at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body\u0027s own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that \u0060return\u0060 occupied \u2014 no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":322}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ab7cb0ffd96ece4d4c0e63cc0d94b32f36ed8dda5bbe99122749c6c37894da98"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16\u201317 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:21-37 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:21-36 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:21\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3b2dd922afeb1a49793ca9b2f864b29d30e46cfb30e0d8533604a4615aaac281"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:60-76 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:72-88 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 87 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:60\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":60}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"98acbbb9342f3177ad31e6433f9226f35a317c073e6dbf3792b04fcbaeec25d7"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:43-58 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:76-91 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:113-128 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:43\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":43}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0e910424b671b213a2e84908390e9c2df24865fb6c5656f0aa77047901b6fd67"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:105-120 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:78-93 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 88 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:105\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":105}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8f44cf74626b8e0cb73909cac348ed7c5606385e6ff204a6caee52294374a82e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:183-198 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:286-301 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:183\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":183}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dd2d0e62b079dec1bb23df4c8bf96274f49dfdeb95eb253fae1c50d00d6ea9d3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14\u201315 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:113-127 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:86-99 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:93-106 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 88 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:113\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":113}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2fb679ff32a404ba3937124fa2a88a8f11c642d12af8e9d0a2bdc78dd9dc3873"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14\u201315 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:170-183 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:192-206 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:170\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift"},"region":{"startLine":170}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a0ef6aeefe4cd81a60ed1607b891e482348db7dab3aafe4e2bb783845d547814"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Files/FileDestination.swift:16-30 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Files/FileDestination.swift:33-47 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any \u0060return\u0060 inside it is the body\u0027s own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Files/FileDestination.swift"},"region":{"startLine":16}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"845d24cadad452b9923e74f298ee484a98918e7c69d8e3bef0fbe4b9d84b9b15"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201314 lines \u00D7 43): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:55-65 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift:56-66 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/listextattr/SystemListExtattrMetadataView.swift:47-57 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setextattr/SystemSetExtattrMetadataView.swift:56-66 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System Mounting/SystemMountMetadataView.swift:57-67 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:52-62 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift:157-167 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:50-60 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/open/SystemFileOpenMetadataView.swift:44-54 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift:116-126 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:51-61 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift:110-122 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/remote_thread_create/SystemRemoteThreadCreateMetadataView.swift:94-104 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift:73-83 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Kernel/SystemIOKitOpenMetadataView.swift:71-81 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:90-100 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:54-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift:42-52 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWUnlockMetadataView.swift:42-52 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLoginLoginMetadataView.swift:55-65 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:82-92 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mmap/SystemMMAPMetadataView.swift:80-90 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mprotect/SystemMProtectMetadataView.swift:75-85 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:122-132 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:96-106 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:94-104 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:110-120 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:115-125 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:101-111 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:70-82 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift:52-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift:76-86 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exit/SystemProcExitMetadataView.swift:41-54 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/signal/SystemProcessSignalMetadataView.swift:84-94 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift:82-92 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Pseudoterminal/SystemPTYGrantMetadataView.swift:34-44 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/bind/SystemUIPCBindMetadataView.swift:57-69 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/connect/SystemUIPCConnectMetadataView.swift:66-78 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift:178-190 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Task Port/SystemGetTaskMetadataView.swift:41-51 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XPC/SystemXPCConnectMetadataView.swift:44-54 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:69-81 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:81-93 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:55\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/remote_thread_create/SystemRemoteThreadCreateMetadataView.swift:105\u0060 calls \u0060Button\u0060, \u0060toggle\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:66\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":55}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2e680ab7ed7878b74509e63c1c60a48f25731f0c292d6ccbbfe855d2b680454e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12\u201314 lines \u00D7 39): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:58-70 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift:59-71 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/listextattr/SystemListExtattrMetadataView.swift:50-62 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setextattr/SystemSetExtattrMetadataView.swift:59-71 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setmode/SystemSetModeMetadataView.swift:48-60 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System Mounting/SystemMountMetadataView.swift:60-71 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:55-66 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift:160-171 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:53-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/open/SystemFileOpenMetadataView.swift:47-58 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift:119-130 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:54-65 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift:115-126 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Kernel/SystemIOKitOpenMetadataView.swift:74-85 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:93-104 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:57-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift:45-56 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWUnlockMetadataView.swift:45-56 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLoginLoginMetadataView.swift:58-69 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:85-96 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mmap/SystemMMAPMetadataView.swift:83-94 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mprotect/SystemMProtectMetadataView.swift:78-89 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:125-136 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:99-110 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:97-108 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:113-124 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:118-129 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:104-115 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:73-86 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift:55-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exit/SystemProcExitMetadataView.swift:45-58 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/fork/SystemForkProcMetadataView.swift:30-43 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Pseudoterminal/SystemPTYGrantMetadataView.swift:37-49 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/bind/SystemUIPCBindMetadataView.swift:62-73 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/connect/SystemUIPCConnectMetadataView.swift:71-82 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift:183-194 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XPC/SystemXPCConnectMetadataView.swift:47-58 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:72-85 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:84-97 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:58\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exit/SystemProcExitMetadataView.swift:39\u0060 calls \u0060ProcessView\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:54\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":58}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"99eb088c22140be41bac7205ed8d5f7df64462b5241ddfe638bdd38f1ad8ad40"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 8): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileMetadataSystemEventViews.swift:31-44 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileSystemEventViews.swift:57-70 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/LaunchItemSystemEventViews.swift:49-62 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/MMAPSystemEventsViews.swift:65-78 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/SystemFileDupEventTableView.swift:30-43 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/SystemFileRenameEventTableView.swift:55-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/SystemLoginEventTableViews.swift:31-44 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/XProtectSystemEventViews.swift:55-68 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from all 8 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileMetadataSystemEventViews.swift:31\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Correlation tables/FileMetadataSystemEventViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5cb1c8ca5aa37f264a4f2618cbeaaad073de6146168cfb5963eb02dca559e44f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:33-46 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:63-76 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:97-110 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:33\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":33}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"22117f57a0779c7adc8d461d912662291a8204c6b671bc4fe09e8a592cfbb2c3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift:65-78 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift:111-124 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift:65\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":65}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"573d9d8b2486b9460a8048ff7773226d9b8a85b38d8cee8f704327ffd029dba4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:37-50 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:27-40 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:37\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":37}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6aecaad8ecd704b298fc3a893c1bc3cd78ec296a5bda5fa9b04cba8ac96a170a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:134-147 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:224-237 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":134}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"82c502b88831bc9a20de9390c01566f5ea7aca8a4f97ff40bdb9a81f3c3c4456"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201314 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift:300-313 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift:317-327 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Core Data Controller/CoreDataController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":300}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1da8115b0edad184f4adff648a4bbb1ccea14e7afd1413e529b4be12d35905b1"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12\u201313 lines \u00D7 5): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:40-52 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:38-50 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:39-51 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:53-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:43-54 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:40\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":40}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f1a91316d8331c5950f22b27760b0e5f30c3e1e8fb6dd18eee6a27ef3e4a09c3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12\u201313 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:39-51 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:63-74 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:85-96 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:39\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":39}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"59e593c70f5ee754ad539a4385d918dd8728812f43987a383120aad96af3404b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12\u201313 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift:58-69 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift:67-79 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift:58\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":58}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b7bc9ea071487a3f6661d04ab04de0befae50128b49677c8e9691bffd8f99cdb"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:95-107 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:75-87 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 85 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:95\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":95}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c0d5b03005be4051cff9a6c1c0f2b9cc87693965936f157c673454839e53bd61"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:272-284 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:317-329 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:272\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":272}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cfb74169ec60b1bde4bed313ee259c26145740b76271196e41be884871b34252"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:24-36 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:23-35 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:24\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8457e3fb78132e6dea39cfc0e2f9f4294e4b4928ee8443632cc7640e3f7708ee"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/Utilities/Path Muting/MuteSet.swift:102-114 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/Utilities/Path Muting/MuteSet.swift:116-128 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/Utilities/Path Muting/MuteSet.swift:102\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/Utilities/Path Muting/MuteSet.swift"},"region":{"startLine":102}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"32259ca165130cd3a54923acf65744da358576cf5f520d64241a572517607c83"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 4): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:25-37 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:23-35 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:25-36 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:24-36 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:25\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c2273471567d694f2f7878766b0166e79b52c716e9c34415f4b0621c9317bd6e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201312 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:149-160 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Unified/UnifiedSystemEventViews.swift:167-177 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:149\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":149}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"620a28b7618007228cfe10ae47d1c6374a31dbd840e01fdb660a614ff868f003"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201312 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:239-249 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Unified/UnifiedSystemEventViews.swift:53-64 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:239\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift:250\u0060 calls \u0060defaultVisibility\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Unified/UnifiedSystemEventViews.swift:66\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Process/ProcessSystemEventsViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":239}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6f762d0e5d5d96c32c44300c8582d803c3f9d5c34f8b62022432eeafa1755137"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10\u201311 lines \u00D7 41): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Code Signing/SystemCodeSigningInvalidatedMetadataView.swift:31-40 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:66-76 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift:67-77 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/listextattr/SystemListExtattrMetadataView.swift:58-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setextattr/SystemSetExtattrMetadataView.swift:67-77 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setmode/SystemSetModeMetadataView.swift:56-66 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System Mounting/SystemMountMetadataView.swift:68-77 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:63-72 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift:168-177 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:61-70 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/open/SystemFileOpenMetadataView.swift:55-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift:127-136 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:62-71 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/remote_thread_create/SystemRemoteThreadCreateMetadataView.swift:108-117 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Interprocess/trace/SystemProcessTraceMetadataView.swift:87-96 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Kernel/SystemIOKitOpenMetadataView.swift:82-91 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:101-110 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:65-74 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift:53-62 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWUnlockMetadataView.swift:53-62 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLoginLoginMetadataView.swift:66-75 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:93-102 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mmap/SystemMMAPMetadataView.swift:91-100 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mprotect/SystemMProtectMetadataView.swift:86-95 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:133-142 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:107-116 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:105-114 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:121-130 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:126-135 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:112-121 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:83-92 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift:65-74 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/check/SystemProcessCheckMetadataView.swift:90-99 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exit/SystemProcExitMetadataView.swift:55-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/signal/SystemProcessSignalMetadataView.swift:98-107 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/suspend_resume/SystemProcessSocketMetadataView.swift:96-105 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Pseudoterminal/SystemPTYGrantMetadataView.swift:45-55 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Task Port/SystemGetTaskMetadataView.swift:55-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XPC/SystemXPCConnectMetadataView.swift:55-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:82-91 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:94-103 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Code Signing/SystemCodeSigningInvalidatedMetadataView.swift:31\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Code Signing/SystemCodeSigningInvalidatedMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"548141f53ef4b720db77995d1c30cf4190ca3d978afdf17a648dd16e9b5e0267"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 6): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:40-50 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:38-48 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:39-49 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:40-50 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:53-63 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:43-53 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:40\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":40}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3526e532be45a97527d6043aa13d1101c9859ea68cafc0c163e7259ded24ec5d"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 5): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:367-377 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:409-419 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:542-552 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:584-594 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:632-642 \u2014 all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:367\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":367}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c90e29a482533ddb98e7412083815c23b88b29877256065c3ac33791dc000054"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:350-360 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:378-388 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:405-415 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift:350\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Filter View/FilterView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":350}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"79763262a35fd6c3e61d7a0ac0d6768d05a721ac372f91b3bd9618e1225d1629"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8\u201310 lines \u00D7 42): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemInitatingProcessView.swift:124-132 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift:60-67 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift:61-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/listextattr/SystemListExtattrMetadataView.swift:52-59 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setextattr/SystemSetExtattrMetadataView.swift:61-68 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/setmode/SystemSetModeMetadataView.swift:50-57 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System Mounting/SystemMountMetadataView.swift:62-69 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/close/SystemFileCloseMetadataView.swift:57-64 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift:162-169 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/dup/SystemFDDuplicateMetadataView.swift:55-62 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/open/SystemFileOpenMetadataView.swift:49-56 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift:121-128 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/write/SystemFileWriteMetadataView.swift:56-63 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Gatekeeper/SystemGatekeeperUserOverrideMetadataView.swift:117-124 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Kernel/SystemIOKitOpenMetadataView.swift:76-83 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/link/SystemLinkEventMetadataView.swift:95-102 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Link/unlink/SystemUnlinkEventMetadataView.swift:59-66 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWLoginMetadataView.swift:47-54 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLWUnlockMetadataView.swift:47-54 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Login/SystemLoginLoginMetadataView.swift:60-67 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:87-94 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mmap/SystemMMAPMetadataView.swift:85-92 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Memory Mapping/mprotect/SystemMProtectMetadataView.swift:80-87 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:127-134 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateGroupMetadataView.swift:101-108 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:99-106 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:115-122 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:120-127 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:106-113 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLoginMetadataView.swift:75-84 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/OpenSSH/SystemOpenSSHLogoutMetadataView.swift:57-66 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/exit/SystemProcExitMetadataView.swift:47-56 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Process/fork/SystemForkProcMetadataView.swift:32-41 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Pseudoterminal/SystemPTYGrantMetadataView.swift:39-46 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:190-198 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/petition/SystemAuthorizationPetitionMetadataView.swift:192-200 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/bind/SystemUIPCBindMetadataView.swift:64-71 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Socket/connect/SystemUIPCConnectMetadataView.swift:73-80 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/TCC/SystemTCCModifyMetadataView.swift:185-192 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XPC/SystemXPCConnectMetadataView.swift:49-56 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectDetectMetadataView.swift:74-83 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/XProtect/SystemXProtectRemediateMetadataView.swift:86-95 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/deleteextattr/SystemDeleteExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File Metadata/getextattr/SystemGetExtattrMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Security Authorization/judgement/SystemAuthorizationJudementMetadataView.swift:190\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemInitatingProcessView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":124}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bfd827b67b8a96bf95046edcd7fab69ddd4d2cd5aead3a5bf11b203fa402110f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 6): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:318-327 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:361-370 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:403-412 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:435-444 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:536-545 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:578-587 \u2014 all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":318}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"33a8e55458e7e02649691c7a02773d0c9801e064ea3e6273cbab1008584fad96"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 6): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:21-30 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateGroupEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:21-30 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateUserEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:26-35 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:21-30 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:20-29 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODModifyPasswordEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:20-29 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fdf6f93b7aeb24d086858e896c68c2e975fa6ad05f34468a4159927cca9a38d2"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 6): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift:107-116 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/create_group/OpenDirectoryCreateGroupEvent.swift:78-87 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/create_user/OpenDirectoryCreateUserEvent.swift:76-85 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift:95-104 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift:95-104 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/modify_password/OpenDirectoryModifyPasswordEvent.swift:71-80 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_add/OpenDirectoryGroupAddEvent.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/group_remove/OpenDirectoryGroupRemoveEvent.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift:107\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Directory Events/attribute_value_add/OpenDirectoryAttributeValueAddEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":107}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"17fcbc21963dc717c7c89e04c57e4e9aa953888c533944876d50e01e280e6c6a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5\u201310 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:35-44 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:46-55 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:56-60 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:35\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:35\u0060 calls \u0060monospaced\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift:56\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/MDM/profile_add/SystemProfileAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":35}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"211cf66e501af42f19d24521245151ab94d505d8d284b6f1c3688edf1904806c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:18-27 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:20-29 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:18\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:28\u0060 calls \u0060font\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:30\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":18}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"11cc9ef020178b2bc4eae9c9ba54560988220d2d23b3bc796191f60f3028dece"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9\u201310 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:349-357 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:373-382 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:349\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":349}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6a112d506d572b9d7b3de5ca6c1721a8a46b74a64cb3819041f76ccead3ba30f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9\u201310 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:391-399 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:415-424 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:391\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":391}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e9e0bf690503224702b1b9bd19eb0da7146c7899545f0de61e604f50642716ff"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9\u201310 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:614-622 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:638-647 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:614\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":614}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fc7e4f52c3bc10d7c7fca8048d2edfacf6934065f005fe32b28e002fbffd0418"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:44-53 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:43-52 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:44\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":44}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2a0c69a9290bd7e12c5646dee7a84b42d15f85955505afc10030c6854e7cba83"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift:126-134 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift:80-88 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift:99-107 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 58 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift:126\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/create/SystemFileCreateMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":126}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e223150e55a3190ae66c5d058212225d5c3efddae52cf3b519b2e1004f414da2"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8\u20139 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Grouping/SystemProcessGroupTableView.swift:24-32 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Grouping/SystemSessionGroupTableView.swift:43-50 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Grouping/SystemProcessGroupTableView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4c4f92a6ad3062f022807c502fc207895d4409c66110440a35022ce9c2fe0c23"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:79-87 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:88-96 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 58 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift:77\u0060 calls \u0060frame\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupRemoveMetadataView.swift:86\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryGroupAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":79}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"712f058904f7dc7ca7249f6a6ed508a6fdf48786278390a0feebbd7613538a06"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8\u20139 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:525-532 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:548-556 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:525\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":525}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b96de56e171df2d7be973fa0239264ac438c17729cee6f4ab3365b2315e3944e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8\u20139 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:567-574 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:590-598 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:567\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":567}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"43c0dbaf478bad2734918cb7e470cbc4f292e1198dacbf13c56cf7f17d69bb6f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 12): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:299-306 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:348-355 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:372-379 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:390-397 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:414-421 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:494-501 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:524-531 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:547-554 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:566-573 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:589-596 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:613-620 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:637-644 \u2014 all 12 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":299}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a4a26e3d1422f4c07de03c760078f9937151d9e77314359dccfbca9a1b99a992"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 6): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:42-49 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateGroupEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:39-46 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODCreateUserEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:45-52 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:40-47 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:39-46 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODModifyPasswordEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:39-46 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODGroupRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:42\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Directory Events/ESODAttributeValueAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e7b9c13bf3e0592e2d06c27ff57a285a147f6d7a2f1e3d181937f10b88c5af42"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift:95-102 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift:68-75 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryModifyPasswordMetadataView.swift:75-82 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryCreateUserMetadataView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 88 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Open Directory/SystemOpenDirectoryAttrAddMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":95}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"860c6459378431cf82c60eea49cae57af5ea55a50a1f41d50e8267dd78904dac"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7\u20138 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Process/ProcessHelpers.swift:69-75 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Process/ProcessHelpers.swift:80-87 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The \u0060return\u0060 at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body\u0027s own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that \u0060return\u0060 occupied \u2014 no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Artifacts/Process/ProcessHelpers.swift"},"region":{"startLine":69}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4f4c4cbf1e29d4e1ec29731d6f8db53950cf5d731b82f5738b56530a14ade27c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectDetect\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:26-32 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectRemediate\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:29-35 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectDetect\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"47ef568522e1c2df113a2a1fb4fd5d57981a9f19d90053483860c5f295be95e6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:230-235 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/SystemEventFactsView.swift:24-29 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:230\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift"},"region":{"startLine":230}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"51e275a88f29074e108243d4a5e8189554a65462a121da81c36cd1590b005364"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift:346-354 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift:398-403 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift:346\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":346}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3b6240d567edb9b2c8a0736f239ed08747f93b2fa1bfd87e3a150d86b550169a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Artifacts/Files/ESNewPath\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:26-31 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Socket Events/bind/ESUIPCBindEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:24-29 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Artifacts/Files/ESNewPath\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"acd8511c7d1c77b53004c115c05cb248c4f4387adcd8e0eb7edd5390ca28454c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_add/ESLaunchItemAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:62-67 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_remove/ESLaunchItemRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:63-68 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_add/ESLaunchItemAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:62\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_add/ESLaunchItemAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:68\u0060 calls \u0060encode\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_remove/ESLaunchItemRemoveEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:70\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Service Management Events/launch_item_add/ESLaunchItemAddEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":62}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1fb5be37160637dcf7291d0b05c59fc0e189a094f194f3ea7313221828591055"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectDetect\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:41-46 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectRemediate\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:48-53 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectDetect\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:41\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/XProtect Events/ESXProtectDetect\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":41}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dfad8b2c2d9cf0571da76a5678bfcb65d3f128a7f44529c1a15e16dbc3a01401"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 7): ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:318-322 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:361-365 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:403-407 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:435-439 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:536-540 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:578-582 | ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift:626-630 \u2014 all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":318}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d769a376e81c6e11db60fa061e944bc550543e1b6fb472a2dfa618f8ec441e00"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:164-168 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:186-190 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift:164\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Legacy/EventFacts.swift"},"region":{"startLine":164}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b5de43ddca896ab1aa238d88af54a46bd06be445955712e0646ff0ad50799340"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Interprocess Events/trace/ESProcessTraceEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:23-27 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Task Port Events/get_task/ESGetTaskEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:25-33 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Interprocess Events/trace/ESProcessTraceEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f3829737360df19df766e4a6e9d18dc01f0feed2d6821bc6f429b80f2b57d343"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/EventType/EventType\u002BESMapping.swift:561-565 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/EventType/EventType\u002BESMapping.swift:576-580 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/EventType/EventType\u002BESMapping.swift:561\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The \u0060return\u0060 at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body\u0027s own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that \u0060return\u0060 occupied \u2014 no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/EventType/EventType\u002BESMapping.swift"},"region":{"startLine":561}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"89e71cc36327e9078d4b0fa718d549958c2bcd4528ad14e84081fc29d3c9839d"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/SonomaStartButton.swift:24-41 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/VenturaStartButton.swift:24-41 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/ContentView.swift:204-221 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/Accessories/SonomaStartButton.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"74df9cee15b20607dd40dcf1b776e108ac40c26492fbb03a9f12060e210b16d6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/File Metadata Events/deleteextattr/ESXattrDeleteEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:32-36 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/File Metadata Events/getextattr/ESXattrGetEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:33-37 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/File Metadata Events/setextattr/ESXattrSetEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:33-37 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/File Metadata Events/deleteextattr/ESXattrDeleteEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"741d985be437cee7591e43b323345f635235af4cd572c0d08a1fb2ca30a03e82"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Login Events/Login Window Events/lw_session_login/ESLWLoginEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:32-38 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Login Events/Login Window Events/lw_session_unlock/ESLWUnlockEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift:33-39 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/CoreDataModels/Login Events/Login Window Events/lw_session_login/ESLWLoginEvent\u002BCoreDataClass.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"669fe79682c77f75c9280cf94510e35152911a8f9f64fc4935dd8df639a84a73"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 3): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File Metadata Events/deleteextattr/XattrDeleteEvent.swift:27-33 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File Metadata Events/getextattr/XattrGetEvent.swift:26-32 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File Metadata Events/setextattr/XattrSetEvent.swift:26-32 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File Metadata Events/deleteextattr/XattrDeleteEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":27}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0e96840b6f57143d0c7d5f4519a4655259e7376e6b758db230cc884bb4eab8ad"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File Metadata Events/listextattr/XattrListEvent.swift:26-31 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File System Events/write/FileWriteEvent.swift:25-29 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/File Metadata Events/listextattr/XattrListEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"973a26e75df49885bfb48ea34aa2fdddc5d9cf0979007645595c4ee9dc14c9a8"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Login Events/Login Window Events/lw_session_login/LWLoginEvent.swift:33-38 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Login Events/Login Window Events/lw_session_unlock/LWUnlockEvent.swift:26-31 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Login Events/Login Window Events/lw_session_login/LWLoginEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":33}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4f1cc9dbaeb3ce7c5498d27c579223acf8da86155ac9c535e7b07e5720ba2921"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 4): ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemAddEvent.swift:27-33 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemRemoveEvent.swift:32-38 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/XProtect Events/XProtecRemediateEvent.swift:30-36 | ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/XProtect Events/XProtectDetectEvent.swift:27-33 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/XProtect Events/XProtectDetectEvent.swift:37\u0060 calls \u0060Int\u0060 and \u0060ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/XProtect Events/XProtecRemediateEvent.swift:41\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/Events/Models/Service Management Events/LaunchItemAddEvent.swift"},"region":{"startLine":27}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1bdd6679091d4ef9a3e6b2f858df01877ffbdaab72e26cf461cf0af422793817"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift:211-216 | ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift:223-228 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":211}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ff146ffc9a0f9ec5cf8ccb00fea60c02bb892493222abf03dd66a2d22418d66a"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: EndpointSecurityManager (LCOM4 13): EndpointSecurityManager\u0027s methods fall into 13 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 13 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ab7d81ffcc174e61ad7964700fb185331efce88ae528089110092b699aa8b9a7"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: RCXPCConnection (LCOM4 4): RCXPCConnection\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SecurityExtension/XPC/RCXPC.swift"},"region":{"startLine":121}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8b44dba7851ab79427ec1404c45101bf7ea9b5e9145a94905aa501fb3a4c9066"}},{"ruleId":"D8","level":"error","message":{"text":"No automated tests: No automated tests \u2014 no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3132564c6310e5d01a231f252a02d5d2f5a542c0a8fa29a14c89693f1e3df871"}},{"ruleId":"D9","level":"note","message":{"text":"No tests found: No test suite could be collected \u2014 no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c9bf64cbb5a4ae13d6bcd01fa3bc8d2879d860c73bc67f176ee3c2cecb8adce3"}},{"ruleId":"D13","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5989a83654f7252c27e3022e6d4fa2b750e7d207555716173d16eca77f5ba949"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D13","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7c2ad87100ff854e75718ee97b8629616f2d0358ea5ed1f79128e626cf971fbe"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: //            // TODO: Add to when adding support for new ES events \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/SystemTargetProcessView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":301}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d18967517c6ba9dd64acfc1f1f79734c089ae5d450b2aa8a6f6d87c4cfd9d863"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: When adding suppport for new ES events an appropriate correlated view might make sense \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/Enrichment Views/SystemEnrichedEventView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":199}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"172e3a6f291ed8664e36183ad61d74c4f85637ef678c60f959608447edd4d7e8"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Implement long running process filtering \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Main App View/ContentView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":87}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8dd4a875149e4a94c868129db907caba674bde2c661523e7e3065d0c7f4e4010"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Limit the number of views the user can have displayed \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Event Tables/Unified/SystemEventsTableViews.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ec2ae5d9b48e3a5434f5d455532e637d6e8421e7d34f8662081e3e5e7b344f5a"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Here is where we\u0027re compressing events \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/SECoreDataController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":111}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"778486677bcbe28a4b2bf97ef5e40c19dbd145682caad594c668760d3acd26e5"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Hook up to the UI \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/SECoreDataController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":170}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ecc4754e9f6670e3ad73baf85182d835a4a3b53596bab4b79fcebd73a8e156ee"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: This may cause a problem in the future. Add in the individual events. \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/MutedPath.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a166f5002dfcd1ce7e5e893581a736c8cbe34d0f3472c79c9251da75c4e0e5a3"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: This may cause a problem in the future add in each path. \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/MutedPath.swift"},"region":{"startLine":69}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c2996a3eb096931d96a07a6d76d173b0102f224c3d7ea622451b30eadb585df1"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Candidate for \u0060@Observable\u0060 \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":15}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2941d02bedacc70a491811fa61d869a23023205c100000ca0ad0e7e0065fe722"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Implement the mute with path events \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/Utilities/Path Muting/MutingEngine.swift"},"region":{"startLine":170}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5c713ff88fcd4918f7139df0b46b9baf5ca4dfc0b50b891534c74be77e581746"}},{"ruleId":"D20","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs found: No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (\u0060docs/adr/\u0060, \u0060docs/decisions/\u0060, \u0060adr/\u0060, \u0060docs/rfcs/\u0060, an \u0060ADR0001/\u0060 folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (\u0060docs/adr/use-postgres.md\u0060, \u0060docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md\u0060); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (\u00600001-use-postgres.md\u0060, \u0060adr-012-caching.md\u0060); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an \u0022Architecture Decision Record\u0022 heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these \u2014 unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings \u2014 is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in \u0060docs/adr/\u0060."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d2bea044ff79d7d275f5a91a6e2f548586178eaf480274c33960ad020c854631"}},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d1c3ae08589fd502c0953b520aba9bc468e01fda2b437fcf16b16aa153947d67"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"DM5","level":"error","message":{"text":"Mutable hash-identity entity: EndpointSecurityManager: \u0060EndpointSecurityManager\u0060\u0027s identity is a computed content hash (a cryptographic digest over its own fields), so those fields must be immutable once the object exists \u2014 yet they are exposed as freely externally-mutable \u0060var\u0060s (no \u0060let\u0060/\u0060private(set)\u0060). Mutating a hashed field silently changes the entity\u0027s identity and breaks any hash-keyed collection or integrity check. Make the identity-bearing fields immutable (\u0060let\u0060, or \u0060private(set)\u0060 with construction-time initialisation)."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/SutroESFramework/ESM/ESManager.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e2a2a14b9f6b767ee2d545c7c326904674995cbca4fb0c3406b4a65d97825dbd"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No architecture diagram/doc: No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named \u0060architecture\u0060 or \u0060design\u0060 in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape \u2014 no \u0060## Architecture\u0060 heading, no \u0022architecture overview\u0022/\u0022high-level design\u0022 phrasing, no \u0022the architecture is \u2026\u0022 introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document \u2014 not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c190e7c159d1850ee706c3ac4486e151e8a4fe169de4bf61436b9f399654f06"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: README claims a Security Extension at /Library/SystemExtensions/../com.swiftlydetecting.agent.securityextension.systemextension with signing identifier com.swiftlydetecting.agent.securityextension.systemextension \u2014 searched for: \u0060installer package\u0060. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README\u0027s own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read \u2014 a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"518d45f1fd194fdf9c229300f9293de1eb055cbdce954a4190ba27b8b34655c5"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: Dynamic runtime ES event subscriptions (on-the-fly modify) are claimed but the evidence shows no such feature \u2014 reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c9fdd670e3e3851d42ecaabe3a6054e32da2a8f89af74df1ca6485d13ed261af"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: Event correlation at the process level is claimed but there is no corresponding project or API in the evidence \u2014 reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b4d844b06b1e5a9916fa673172844e4998590f6f669e3ae81247b7a601222b38"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: Process subtree generation and dynamic distribution chart are described but the repository contains no SwiftUI code, so the charts cannot be shown \u2014 reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"643da9989df64056da0f3345f2245a395dae63689a5db2bf9e9720fd22f38541"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists \u2014 searched for: \u0060rag\u0060, \u0060langchain\u0060, \u0060llamaindex\u0060, \u0060pinecone\u0060, \u0060weaviate\u0060, \u0060qdrant\u0060, \u0060embeddings\u0060. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README\u0027s own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read \u2014 a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"641c12de6a27c56ae4f356e613243d119d1728768480ea36e3ea12271e12b02c"}},{"ruleId":"P1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"No CI pipeline: No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, \u2026) \u2014 changes aren\u0027t gated by an automated build/test."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"44f01af96e50474fba2df84d95ddf4f7e1d34c29c307830b9efc9057daa6b670"}},{"ruleId":"P3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No SAST: No static application security testing detected. For this repository\u0027s stack, add CodeQL\u0027s Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or \u0060semgrep --config=auto\u0060, which runs on any language) \u2014 this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen \u2014 if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54424179c892f03ef2fd003130ac4bd43f39bbf3b1ca0a0143e25acb80ec87"}},{"ruleId":"P6","level":"note","message":{"text":"No changelog: No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file \u2014 what shipped when isn\u0027t easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dda5aa5aed8cbb292c3ef2b733bc138f614293ae6426c85e98bf31ef330d9415"}},{"ruleId":"X10","level":"note","message":{"text":"Duplicated predicate: \u0060event.is_quarantined == 0 \u0026\u0026 event.destination_path.hasSuffix(\u0022.app\u0022)\u0060 appears character-identically in 2 files \u2014 ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift, ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/System Event Views/Labels/EventLabelViews.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector\u0027s token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"ProjectSutro/ProjectSutro/Event Facts Views/Event Metadata Views/File System/rename/SystemFileRenameMetadataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":27}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d516e8ab0e748a33b910240f7b88e7ec2b08266ebc17bf6b2a648aeee1d69715"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","guid":"e4d2e772-757e-0a5c-bd7d-77052949d866","name":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component","shortDescription":{"text":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1357.html"},{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-353","guid":"09d7e902-d4ee-f05d-ae6c-0a1554d0c18f","name":"CWE-353","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-353"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/353.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"OS Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"OS Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"SQL Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"SQL Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Code Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":3,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}},"redactionTokens":["A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."]}]}