Public report of ChartsOrg/Charts, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 05:16 UTC · Survey ID cd_8bc4ed5367b1439d9bd53d549d7ed48d
ChartsOrg/Charts
Measured 23 October 2026, 05:14 UTC, at code version 1bad546
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Bus factor is not measured: No living knowledge left to concentrate.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 1 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 24,700 lines of product code in 4 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 51
Findings by how serious they are
7 critical241 serious180 minor
35 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 October 2026, 05:14 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
42of 45 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
413of 428 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 15 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
45dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 24,700 lines of product code in 4 projects.
ChartsOrg/Charts scores 55 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 88, Security and Compliance at 69, Performance at 62 and Code Health at 61, all rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 51 and is rated Adequate. Its Security & performance tooling dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 97 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 55 to about 58.
Seven findings are critical, all in Static Analysis (SAST).
Watchdog couldn't measure 34 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Internal API Consistency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 24,700 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €27,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €27,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€8,800 to €44,000, for 147 to 466 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.8 at a score of 55. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 24,700 lines of product code
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Resolve the 97 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with LineChartRenderer.swift, ChartViewBase.swift, PieRadarChartViewBase.swift.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €27,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 51 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.7 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 3% to 7% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 7,873 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 31,929 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 2.7 to 16 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
2 modules, with 1 dependency between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
9
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
7
Medium
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration
1
Medium
Roadmap
Begin by resolving the 97 orphaned files in the Knowledge Freshness dimension, prioritizing LineChartRenderer.swift, ChartViewBase.swift, and PieRadarChartViewBase.swift. Next, establish architectural governance by creating an ADR Quality document to record significant design decisions, including date, context, decision, and consequences, within a dedicated docs/adr folder. Simultaneously, integrate a SAST step into the CI pipeline using CodeQL or semgrep to ensure security regressions fail the build immediately. Finally, improve the overall documentation quality by completing the truncated usage section in the README to provide clear migration guidance and platform requirements.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 10 use(s) across 26,394 production line(s) (~0.4/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 7
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 241
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 180
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 35
Something this survey could not settle
from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no
positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves
nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean
result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither
rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each
one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 42 of 45 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 45 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 413 of 428 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D4 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 95 duplicated block group(s) on this row were found in the languages this pass could tokenize, and they do NOT cover all of this repository's production source: .m (4,950 lines, 17% of production source) went unread, because no language model this pass could load exposed a clone-unit token stream for those file kinds. Duplication in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the count above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code is free of duplication.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo. In the meantime, commit (or publish into the working tree) the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and the real number is read on the next scan. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces, and the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.swift) and this repository declares a SwiftPM test suite (DGCharts), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 100 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 97 of the 185 production source files in this repository: 85 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 3 have no attributable history left to measure.
D22 Internal API Consistency — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
D26 Project Cohesion — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Project size and spread are measured over build units whose source a code model reads. This repository's .m source is a material share of its production lines and was read by none, so the score is a verdict about the units that were read. Not a finding that the unread source is cohesive — it is unmeasured.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: a native UI project (Charts.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj). The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift, c, objectivec is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift, c, objectivec is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's C, Objective-C, Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found, and this repository's Objective-C is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's C, Objectivec, Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
29 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues at 54. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being Option.label at 33 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: Source/Charts/Animation/ChartAnimationEasing.swift (ChartAnimationEasing.swift.easingFunctionFromOption at 32). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 24 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 29 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 54), LegendRenderer.renderLegend (cyclomatic 54), PieChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 49). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 29 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.7 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 39 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 3 bodies over 120 down to 120 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 244), BarChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 184), LegendRenderer.renderLegend (cognitive 134). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 4.0 to about 5.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 120; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 6 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with BarLineChartViewBase.swift, ChartViewBase.swift, ChartData.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with PieChartRenderer.swift (2), HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift, LegendRenderer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with BarLineChartViewBase.swift, PieChartRenderer.swift, LineChartRenderer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
95 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 7 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 22 of the 102 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population. Measured on part of this repository only: .m (17% of production source) was not exposed to the token comparison, so duplication there is unmeasured and is not in this count.
+ 56 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with XAxisRenderer.swift (3), BarChartRenderer.swift, BarLineChartViewBase.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with XAxisRenderer.swift (2), CandleStickChartRenderer.swift, ChevronDownShapeRenderer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BubbleChartRenderer.swift, LegendRenderer.swift, LineChartRenderer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
4 production modules (SwiftPM+Xcode), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; a workspace's implicit (product-name) dependency is not visible there; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 2 of the 4 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
Off the main sequence: DGCharts
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 18 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ChartViewBase.swift, HorizontalBarChartView.swift, ChartBaseDataSet.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
75 test methods: 75 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
0 skipped, 61 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 75 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).
No direct assertions: testDefaultValues · ×61Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:93
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
1 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 0 pinning defect(s). SwiftPM has no package registry: a dependency is a repository URL and its releases are that repository's semver tags, so currency is answered by listing tags rather than by querying an index. Only a newer tag on the SAME MAJOR is reported — a `from:` requirement admits everything below the next major and nothing above it, so a major crossing needs a Package.swift edit rather than an update, and naming the update as its remedy would be wrong. Whether any dependency is DEPRECATED or ABANDONED is not graded and cannot be: a repository publishes no such marker, and there is no registry that could carry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.
Outdated: swift-snapshot-testing
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 1 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 1 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 0 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed Package.resolved pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
25 deducted task-comment markers across 24700 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Resolve the 19 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ChartDataSet.swift (5), ChartData.swift (4), PieChartView.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Platform+Gestures.swift (3), DemoListViewController.swift, BarChartViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's single README is a well-written, well-structured overview of the Charts project: it states version, links to GitHub commits and release pages, notes breaking changes in version 5.0 (renamed DGCharts), gives migration guidance, lists supported platforms with an embedded Xcode/Swift/Swift compiler requirement, and opens with a bulleted list of features for each target platform. It also begins with a dedicated 'Usage' section that is clipped mid-sentence before the body.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's single README is a well-written, well-structured overview of the Charts project: it states version, links to GitHub commits and release pages, notes breaking changes in version 5.0 (renamed DGCharts), gives migration guidance, lists supported platforms with an embedded Xcode/Swift/Swift compiler requirement, and opens with a bulleted list of features for each target platform. It also begins with a dedicated 'Usage' section that is clipped mid-sentence before the body.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
1 of 3 build units (SwiftPM, Xcode) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent. This repository's .m source was read by no build unit, so this covers part of the tree, not all of it.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
9 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
100 of 100 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift. Counted over 100 of the 185 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Most significant orphaned file · ×3Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 97 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with LineChartRenderer.swift, ChartViewBase.swift, PieRadarChartViewBase.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (97 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with BarLineChartViewBase.swift, BarChartRenderer.swift, PieChartRenderer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.
Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` 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.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
157/190 types (83%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
What to do
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Only 1/2 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `ChartsDemo-macOS`.
What to do
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2838 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's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 10 use(s) across 26,394 production line(s) (~0.4/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
`catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — Source/Charts/Charts/ChartViewBase.swift:769
What to do
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 6 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 69 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Swift imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No Swift request handler (a Vapor, Hummingbird, Kitura, Swifter or Perfect route handler, as a method or a registered closure) is declared, so no state is shared between request threads.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .swift suite was found but not re-run
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — LLM evaluation failed
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.swift), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — Swift suite
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. In C a `case` label must be a constant expression, and a switch has no guards, so no label can change state. In Objective-C a `case` label must be a constant expression, and a switch has no guards, so no label can change state. Swift has no `++` or `--`, and an assignment yields `()`, which cannot be an operand of `&&`, `||` or `?:` nor the Bool a `case … where` clause needs. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
TodoComment ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/DemoBaseViewController.swift:299— // TODO: Cannot override from extensions — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/MultipleLinesChartViewController.swift:73— // TODO: Refine data creation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:193— // TODO: Declarations in extensions cannot override yet. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:313— // TODO: Return nil instead of -1 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:322— // TODO: Return nil instead of -1 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:346— // TODO: Return nil instead of -1 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:286— // TODO: Should be returning `nil` to follow Swift convention — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:300— // TODO: This should return `Void` to follow Swift convention — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:315— // TODO: This should return `Void` to follow Swift convention — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:356— // TODO: This should return the removed entry to follow Swift convention. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:367— // TODO: This should return the removed entry to follow Swift convention. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:189— // TODO: Why does it make sense to return the other axisMin if there is none for the one requested? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:365— // TODO: Don't return nil — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:470— // TODO: Conform when dropping Objective-C support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Formatters/DefaultAxisValueFormatter.swift:36— // TODO: Documentation. Especially the nil case — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:41— // TODO: Due to the potential complexity of data presented in Scatter charts, a more usable way — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:17— // TODO: Currently, this nesting isn't necessary for LineCharts. However, it will make it much easier to add a custom rotor — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:343— // TODO: remove the check. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Source/Charts/Renderers/CombinedChartRenderer.swift:111— // TODO: Due to the potential complexity of data presented in Combined charts, a more usable way — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Low cohesion: ChartViewBase (LCOM4 12) Source/Charts/Charts/ChartViewBase.swift:50— ChartViewBase's methods fall into 12 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 12 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: HorizontalBarChartView (LCOM4 12) Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:16— HorizontalBarChartView's methods fall into 12 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 12 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: ChartBaseDataSet (LCOM4 11) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/ChartBaseDataSet.swift:16— ChartBaseDataSet's methods fall into 11 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 11 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: BarLineChartViewBase (LCOM4 10) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:22— BarLineChartViewBase's methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: ChartData (LCOM4 10) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:14— ChartData's methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: DemoBaseViewController (LCOM4 10) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/DemoBaseViewController.swift:98— DemoBaseViewController's methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: PieChartView (LCOM4 7) Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:20— PieChartView's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: BarChartView (LCOM4 6) Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:16— BarChartView's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart (LCOM4 6) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:15— XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart (LCOM4 6) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:15— YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: NSUIView (LCOM4 6) Source/Charts/Utils/Platform.swift:35— NSUIView's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: CombinedChartData (LCOM4 6) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/CombinedChartData.swift:14— CombinedChartData's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 6) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/AppDelegate.swift:13— AppDelegate's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: BarLineScatterCandleBubbleRenderer (LCOM4 5) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarLineScatterCandleBubbleRenderer.swift:15— BarLineScatterCandleBubbleRenderer's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: AxisBase (LCOM4 4) Source/Charts/Components/AxisBase.swift:24— AxisBase's 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 — your repository's 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 — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: CandleStickChartRenderer (LCOM4 4) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:15— CandleStickChartRenderer's 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 — your repository's 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 — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: RadarChartRenderer (LCOM4 4) Source/Charts/Renderers/RadarChartRenderer.swift:15— RadarChartRenderer's 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 — your repository's 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 — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Low cohesion: ScatterChartRenderer (LCOM4 4) Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:15— ScatterChartRenderer's 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 — your repository's 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 — and which would otherwise dominate this list — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:359— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:359-366 | Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:767-774 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:359` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:43— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:43-50 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:33-40 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 78 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:43` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:842— Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:842-849 | Source/Charts/Charts/PieRadarChartViewBase.swift:755-762 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:376— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:376-383 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:143-150 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 78 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:143— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:143-150 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:183-190 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:23— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:23-30 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:23-30 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `axis` to `XAxis` in one and `YAxis` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BarChartViewController.swift:104— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BarChartViewController.swift:104-111 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HorizontalBarChartViewController.swift:86-93 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HorizontalBarChartViewController.swift:83` calls `animate` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BarChartViewController.swift:101` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
FixmeComment ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/DemoListViewController.swift:98— //FIXME: Add TimeLineChart — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BarChartViewController.swift:69— // FIXME: HUH?? this replaces startAtZero = YES — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Source/Charts/Utils/Platform.swift:275— // FIXME: We can't disable scrolling it on OSX — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Gestures.swift:130— /// FIXME: Currently there are no more than 1 touch in OSX gestures, and not way to create custom touch gestures. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Gestures.swift:166— /// FIXME: Currently there are no more than 1 touch in OSX gestures, and not way to create custom touch gestures. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Gestures.swift:139— /// FIXME: Currently there are no velocities in OSX gestures, and not way to create custom touch gestures. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TooManyMethods: BarLineChartViewBase Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:22— TooManyMethods — 71 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 41 over it, 2.37× 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.
TooManyMethods: ChartViewBase Source/Charts/Charts/ChartViewBase.swift:50— TooManyMethods — 48 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 18 over it, 1.60× 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.
TooManyMethods: ChartData Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:14— TooManyMethods — 40 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 10 over it, 1.33× 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.
TooManyMethods: PieRadarChartViewBase Source/Charts/Charts/PieRadarChartViewBase.swift:22— TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× 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.
TooManyMethods: ChartDataSet Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:25— TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× 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.
TooManyMethods: ViewPortHandler Source/Charts/Utils/ViewPortHandler.swift:16— TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× 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.
MethodTooLong: PieChartRenderer.drawValues Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:286— MethodTooLong — drawValues runs 175 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.75× 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 — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:333— MethodTooLong — drawValues runs 171 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 71 over it, 1.71× 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 — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: LegendRenderer.renderLegend Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:175— MethodTooLong — renderLegend runs 161 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 61 over it, 1.61× 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 — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: CandleStickChartRenderer.drawDataSet Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:54— MethodTooLong — drawDataSet runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× 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 — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: PieChartRenderer.drawHighlighted Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:691— MethodTooLong — drawHighlighted runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16× 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 — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:268— Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:268-347 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:517-600 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:607-748 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:103-187 — These 4 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 — 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 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronDownShapeRenderer.swift:16— Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronDownShapeRenderer.swift:16-35 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronUpShapeRenderer.swift:16-35 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CrossShapeRenderer.swift:16-35 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/XShapeRenderer.swift:16-35 — These 4 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 — 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 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:203— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:203-245 | Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:162-202 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:83-118 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:83-116 — These 4 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 — 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 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:425— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:425-443 | Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:204-296 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:247-340 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:207-299 — These 4 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 — 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 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:107— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:107-143 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:111-151 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:101-141 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/RadarChartViewController.swift:126-171 — These 4 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 — 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 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:112— Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:112-121 | Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:281-290 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:67— Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:67-76 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:155-164 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:67` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:96— Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:96-105 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:191-200 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:476— Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:476-485 | Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:525-534 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:476` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:158— Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:158-167 | Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:178-187 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:158` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:156` calls `scanCharacters`, `scanFloat` and `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:177` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:88— Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:88-96 | Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:164-172 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:100— Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:100-108 | Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:176-184 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:100` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:317— Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:317-325 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:865-873 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:78— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:78-86 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:62-70 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 65 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:78` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:85— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:85-93 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:70-78 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 122 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:95` calls `PieChartData`, `NumberFormatter` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:80` does not — 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:156— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:156-161 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:100-105 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 93 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:28— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:28-33 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:344-349 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:28` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataEntryBase.swift:68— Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataEntryBase.swift:68-74 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/PieChartDataEntry.swift:94-99 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/RadarChartViewController.swift:102— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/RadarChartViewController.swift:102-107 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/RadarChartViewController.swift:111-116 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-macOS/ChartsDemo-macOS/Demos/LineDemoViewController.swift:19— ChartsDemo-macOS/ChartsDemo-macOS/Demos/LineDemoViewController.swift:19-24 | ChartsDemo-macOS/ChartsDemo-macOS/Demos/RadarDemoViewController.swift:19-24 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `ChartsDemo-macOS/ChartsDemo-macOS/Demos/LineDemoViewController.swift:19` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift:16— Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift:16-28 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/SquareShapeRenderer.swift:16-28 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/TriangleShapeRenderer.swift:16-28 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/SquareShapeRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's 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 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift:16` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:99— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:99-111 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:408-420 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:73-85 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:99` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:235— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:235-247 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:281-293 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:239-251 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:107— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:107-119 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:111-123 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:101-113 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 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. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:107` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
ClassTooLong: BarLineChartViewBase Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:22— ClassTooLong — 877 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 71 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 477 over it, 2.19× 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.
ClassTooLong: PieChartRenderer Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:20— ClassTooLong — 542 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 142 over it, 1.36× 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.
ClassTooLong: LineChartRenderer Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:15— ClassTooLong — 493 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 17 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 93 over it, 1.23× 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.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:133— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:133-147 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:440-454 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:133` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:127— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:127-141 | Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:62-76 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:226— Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:226-240 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:186-200 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
FileTooLong: Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift— FileTooLong — 884 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: BarLineChartViewBase (22-1958). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 384 over it, 1.77× 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 — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift— FileTooLong — 547 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: PieChartRenderer (20-927). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 47 over it, 1.09× 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 — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:102— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:102-127 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:411-436 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:102` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:216— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:216-241 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:262-287 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:216` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:180— Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:180-202 | Source/Charts/Charts/PieRadarChartViewBase.swift:255-277 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:180` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:205— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:205-227 | Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:164-186 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:205` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:62— Source/Charts/Charts/BarChartView.swift:62-83 | Source/Charts/Charts/CombinedChartView.swift:80-101 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift:18— Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift:18-39 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/SquareShapeRenderer.swift:18-39 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/SquareShapeRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's 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 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CircleShapeRenderer.swift:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:385— Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:385-405 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:465-485 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/NegativeStackedBarChartViewController.swift:28— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/NegativeStackedBarChartViewController.swift:28-48 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/StackedBarChartViewController.swift:31-51 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/NegativeStackedBarChartViewController.swift:28` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:117— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:117-134 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:136-153 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 93 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:155` calls `CGFloat` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:136` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:22— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:22-39 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/SinusBarChartViewController.swift:20-37 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:22` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:42` calls `setScaleEnabled` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/SinusBarChartViewController.swift:40` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:458— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:458-475 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:345-361 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 93 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:458` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:341— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:341-358 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:154-170 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:333— Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:333-349 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:882-898 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:333` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:435— Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:435-451 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:102-118 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:435` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:268— Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:268-284 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:517-532 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:103-118 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:268` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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 — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:57— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:57-73 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:366-382 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:29-44 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Highlight/ChartHighlighter.swift:88— Source/Charts/Highlight/ChartHighlighter.swift:88-103 | Source/Charts/Highlight/HorizontalBarHighlighter.swift:38-53 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Highlight/ChartHighlighter.swift:88` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:428— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:428-443 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:313-328 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 93 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:428` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:311— Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:311-324 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:564-577 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:311` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Utils/ChartUtils.swift:162— Source/Charts/Utils/ChartUtils.swift:162-175 | Source/Charts/Utils/ChartUtils.swift:227-240 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `anchor` to `CGPoint = CGPoint(x: 0.5, y: 0.5)` in one and `CGPoint` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:128— Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:128-139 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:125-136 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:128` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:77— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:77-88 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:92-103 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:77` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1337— Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1337-1347 | Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1434-1444 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1337` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1445` calls `Double` and `Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1349` does not — 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:128— Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:128-138 | Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:173-183 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:139` calls `scanCharacters`, `scanFloat` and `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:184` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:136— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:136-140 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:157-161 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 93 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:155` calls `CGFloat` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:134` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataEntryBase.swift:56— Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataEntryBase.swift:56-61 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/PieChartDataEntry.swift:84-88 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/BarChartDataSet.swift:39— Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/BarChartDataSet.swift:39-43 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/LineChartDataSet.swift:39-43 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/PieChartDataSet.swift:36-40 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataEntryBase.swift:45— Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataEntryBase.swift:45-50 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/PieChartDataEntry.swift:75-79 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/RadarChartDataEntry.swift:32-36 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 54) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:333— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues has cyclomatic complexity 54 (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.
LegendRenderer.renderLegend (cyclomatic 54) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:175— LegendRenderer.renderLegend has cyclomatic complexity 54 (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.
PieChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 49) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:286— PieChartRenderer.drawValues has cyclomatic complexity 49 (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.
BarChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 48) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:448— BarChartRenderer.drawValues has cyclomatic complexity 48 (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.
BarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer (cyclomatic 34) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:83— BarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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.
PieChartRenderer.drawHighlighted (cyclomatic 32) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:691— PieChartRenderer.drawHighlighted has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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.
Legend.calculateDimensions (cyclomatic 31) Source/Charts/Components/Legend.swift:214— Legend.calculateDimensions has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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.
BarLineChartViewBase.pinchGestureRecognized (cyclomatic 29) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:588— BarLineChartViewBase.pinchGestureRecognized has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.
LineChartRenderer.drawLinear (cyclomatic 29) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:298— LineChartRenderer.drawLinear has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.
PieChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cyclomatic 28) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:112— PieChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cyclomatic complexity 28 (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.
BarLineChartViewBase.panGestureRecognized (cyclomatic 27) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:678— BarLineChartViewBase.panGestureRecognized has cyclomatic complexity 27 (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.
BarLineChartViewBase.draw (cyclomatic 25) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:171— BarLineChartViewBase.draw has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer (cyclomatic 25) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:68— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.
PieRadarChartViewBase.calculateOffsets (cyclomatic 24) Source/Charts/Charts/PieRadarChartViewBase.swift:101— PieRadarChartViewBase.calculateOffsets has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
BarChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cyclomatic 24) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:295— BarChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
LineChartRenderer.drawCircles (cyclomatic 21) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:607— LineChartRenderer.drawCircles has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cyclomatic 19) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:182— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
LegendRenderer.computeLegend (cyclomatic 19) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:32— LegendRenderer.computeLegend has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
CandleStickChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cyclomatic 18) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:54— CandleStickChartRenderer.drawDataSet 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.
ChartDataSet.entryIndex (cyclomatic 17) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:213— ChartDataSet.entryIndex has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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.
DemoBaseViewController.handleOption (cyclomatic 17) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/DemoBaseViewController.swift:127— DemoBaseViewController.handleOption has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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 — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: Option.label (cyclomatic 33) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
BarLineChartViewBase.nsuiGestureRecognizerShouldBegin (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:884— BarLineChartViewBase.nsuiGestureRecognizerShouldBegin has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
HorizontalBarChartView.calculateLegendOffsets (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:33— HorizontalBarChartView.calculateLegendOffsets has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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 — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — 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.
BubbleChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:152— BubbleChartRenderer.drawValues 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.
LegendRenderer.drawForm (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:477— LegendRenderer.drawForm 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.
LineChartRenderer.drawValues (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:517— LineChartRenderer.drawValues 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.
XAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52— XAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues 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.
YAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:361— YAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues 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.
YAxisRendererRadarChart.computeAxisValues (cyclomatic 16) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:27— YAxisRendererRadarChart.computeAxisValues 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.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 244) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:333— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 244 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 30 (143 pts), ternaries 11 (69 pts), loops 5 (22 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 188). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
BarChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 184) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:448— BarChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 184 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (110 pts), ternaries 7 (39 pts), loops 5 (22 pts), boolean chains 13 (nesting depth added 134). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
LegendRenderer.renderLegend (cognitive 134) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:175— LegendRenderer.renderLegend has cognitive complexity 134 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 34 (84 pts), ternaries 10 (36 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 80). 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.
BarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer (cognitive 104) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:83— BarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer has cognitive complexity 104 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (48 pts), ternaries 14 (48 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 67). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
PieChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 102) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:286— PieChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 102 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27 (71 pts), boolean chains 21, ternaries 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 50). 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.
Legend.calculateDimensions (cognitive 85) Source/Charts/Components/Legend.swift:214— Legend.calculateDimensions has cognitive complexity 85 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (51 pts), ternaries 7 (25 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 52). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — 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.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer (cognitive 66) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:68— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.prepareBuffer has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 12 (42 pts), if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 39). 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.
LineChartRenderer.drawLinear (cognitive 66) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:298— LineChartRenderer.drawLinear has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (52 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (4 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 33). 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.
BarLineChartViewBase.pinchGestureRecognized (cognitive 63) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:588— BarLineChartViewBase.pinchGestureRecognized has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (30 pts), ternaries 6 (22 pts), boolean chains 11 (nesting depth added 32). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
PieChartRenderer.drawHighlighted (cognitive 60) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:691— PieChartRenderer.drawHighlighted has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (36 pts), ternaries 5 (11 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 26). 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.
LegendRenderer.computeLegend (cognitive 52) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:32— LegendRenderer.computeLegend has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (28 pts), loops 4 (14 pts), ternaries 1 (6 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
BarLineChartViewBase.panGestureRecognized (cognitive 48) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:678— BarLineChartViewBase.panGestureRecognized has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (41 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
PieChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cognitive 48) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:112— PieChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (30 pts), boolean chains 8, ternaries 5 (8 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 19). 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.
CandleStickChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cognitive 46) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:54— CandleStickChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (43 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 22). 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.
PieRadarChartViewBase.calculateOffsets (cognitive 45) Source/Charts/Charts/PieRadarChartViewBase.swift:101— PieRadarChartViewBase.calculateOffsets has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (12 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 24). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — 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's 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.
BarChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cognitive 42) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:295— BarChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (33 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 19). 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.
LineChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 37) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:517— LineChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (28 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 22). 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.
LineChartRenderer.drawCircles (cognitive 37) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:607— LineChartRenderer.drawCircles has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (26 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 2 (3 pts) (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.
CandleStickChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 34) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:268— CandleStickChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (25 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 20). 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.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cognitive 34) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:182— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (29 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (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.
ScatterChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 34) Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:103— ScatterChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (25 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 20). 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.
CombinedChartData.calcMinMax (cognitive 31) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/CombinedChartData.swift:102— CombinedChartData.calcMinMax has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (28 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 19). 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.
BubbleChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 28) Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:152— BubbleChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (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.
RadarChartRenderer.drawHighlighted (cognitive 27) Source/Charts/Renderers/RadarChartRenderer.swift:338— RadarChartRenderer.drawHighlighted has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (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.
BarLineChartViewBase.draw (cognitive 25) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:171— BarLineChartViewBase.draw has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, boolean chains 7. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — 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.
ChartDataSet.entryIndex (cognitive 25) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:213— ChartDataSet.entryIndex has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). 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.
BarChartRenderer.drawHighlighted (cognitive 24) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:708— BarChartRenderer.drawHighlighted has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). 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.
YAxisRendererRadarChart.computeAxisValues (cognitive 23) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:27— YAxisRendererRadarChart.computeAxisValues has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). 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.
ChartColorTemplates.colorFromString (cognitive 23) Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:82— ChartColorTemplates.colorFromString has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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.
XAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues (cognitive 22) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52— XAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), ternaries 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 5). 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.
YAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues (cognitive 22) Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:361— YAxisRenderer.computeAxisValues has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), ternaries 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 5). 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.
BarLineChartViewBase.nsuiGestureRecognizerShouldBegin (cognitive 20) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:884— BarLineChartViewBase.nsuiGestureRecognizerShouldBegin has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
HorizontalBarChartView.calculateLegendOffsets (cognitive 20) Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:33— HorizontalBarChartView.calculateLegendOffsets has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), match/switch 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
CombinedChartRenderer.createRenderers (cognitive 19) Source/Charts/Renderers/CombinedChartRenderer.swift:47— CombinedChartRenderer.createRenderers has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). 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.
XAxisRenderer.drawLabels (cognitive 19) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:248— XAxisRenderer.drawLabels has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (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.
HorizontalBarChartRenderer.initBuffers (cognitive 18) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:35— HorizontalBarChartRenderer.initBuffers has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (8 pts), if/else 4 (7 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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.
LineChartRenderer.drawCubicBezier (cognitive 18) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:94— LineChartRenderer.drawCubicBezier has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), ternaries 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 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.
RadarChartRenderer.drawValues (cognitive 18) Source/Charts/Renderers/RadarChartRenderer.swift:192— RadarChartRenderer.drawValues has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 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.
ChartData.calcMinMax (cognitive 18) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:82— ChartData.calcMinMax has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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.
BarLineChartViewBase.gestureRecognizer (cognitive 17) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:932— BarLineChartViewBase.gestureRecognizer has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 1 (2 pts) (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.
BarChartRenderer.createAccessibleElement (cognitive 17) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:799— BarChartRenderer.createAccessibleElement has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), ternaries 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). 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.
RadarChartRenderer.drawDataSet (cognitive 17) Source/Charts/Renderers/RadarChartRenderer.swift:67— RadarChartRenderer.drawDataSet has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, ternaries 1 (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.
BarLineChartViewBase.calculateLegendOffsets (cognitive 16) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:372— BarLineChartViewBase.calculateLegendOffsets has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (12 pts), if/else 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). 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.
BarLineChartViewBase.doubleTapGestureRecognized (cognitive 16) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:558— BarLineChartViewBase.doubleTapGestureRecognized has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), ternaries 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 29 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 29 shared lines) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52-154 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:361-461 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererRadarChart.swift:27-129 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 29 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 3 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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 3 times.
Duplicated block (50–52 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:222— Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:222-271 | Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:811-862 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:222` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (42–44 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52-95 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:363-404 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 168 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:52` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:253— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:253-295 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:298-340 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:253` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:458— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:458-492 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:263-297 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 78 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:458` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (31–33 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:377— Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:377-409 | Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:41-71 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:377` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (29–30 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:395— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:395-424 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:279-307 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 93 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:395` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:451— Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:451-475 | Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:121-145 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:451` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:164— Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:164-187 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:234-257 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:164` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:236— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:236-256 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:240-259 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:236` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (17–19 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:558— Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:558-574 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:661-678 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:139-157 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift` 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:558` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:68— Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:68-86 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:94-112 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:68` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:331— Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:331-347 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:584-600 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:170-187 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:331` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13–16 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:771— Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:771-786 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:214-226 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift` 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:771` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:208— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:208-222 | Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:167-181 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:88-102 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:88-102 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:208` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:104` calls `beginPath` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:104` does not — 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronDownShapeRenderer.swift:16— Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronDownShapeRenderer.swift:16-29 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronUpShapeRenderer.swift:16-29 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/CrossShapeRenderer.swift:16-29 | Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/XShapeRenderer.swift:16-29 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Source/Charts/Renderers/Scatter/ChevronDownShapeRenderer.swift:16` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Objective-C/Formatters/LargeValueFormatter.swift:32— ChartsDemo-iOS/Objective-C/Formatters/LargeValueFormatter.swift:32-44 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Formatters/LargeValueFormatter.swift:28-38 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — 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 `ChartsDemo-iOS/Objective-C/Formatters/LargeValueFormatter.swift:32` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:412— Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:412-424 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:492-504 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:412` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:431— Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:431-442 | Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:234-245 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:280-291 | Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:238-249 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:445` calls `renderLimitLineLabel` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:293` does not — 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.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:426— Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:426-437 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:506-516 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:426` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. 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 — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:125— Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:125-133 | Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:146-156 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — 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 `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:125` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:157` calls `scanFloat`, `scanCharacters` and `Source/Charts/Utils/ChartColorTemplates.swift:134` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:378— Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:378-388 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:774-783 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:214-223 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:376` calls `getTransformer` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:772` does not — 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.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:401— Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:401-409 | Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:564-573 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. 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 — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarLineScatterCandleBubbleRenderer.swift:66— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarLineScatterCandleBubbleRenderer.swift:66-72 | Source/Charts/Renderers/CombinedChartRenderer.swift:162-168 | Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:578-584 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:357— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:357-363 | Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:394-399 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:358— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:358-364 | Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:394-400 | Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:767-772 — 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 — 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 `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:767` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/BarLineScatterCandleBubbleChartData.swift:16— Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/BarLineScatterCandleBubbleChartData.swift:16-29 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/CandleChartData.swift:16-29 | Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/LineChartData.swift:17-30 — before extracting anything, compare `Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/BarLineScatterCandleBubbleChartData.swift` and `Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/CandleChartData.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's 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 — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:47— Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:47-52 | Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:22-27 | Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:19-24 | Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:25-30 | Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:19-24 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `dataProvider` to `BarChartDataProvider` in one and `BubbleChartDataProvider` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:41` calls `accessibilityCreateEmptyOrderedElements` and `Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:16` does not — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:113— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:113-150 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart1ViewController.swift:166-208 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:147-184 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartTimeViewController.swift:122-159 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/MultipleLinesChartViewController.swift:103-134 — These 5 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 — 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 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — 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.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:36— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:36-66 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift:38-68 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:36` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:112— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:112-139 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:102-129 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 122 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:112` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 5) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:113— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:113-139 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart1ViewController.swift:166-192 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:147-173 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartTimeViewController.swift:122-148 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/MultipleLinesChartViewController.swift:103-129 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift` 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. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:113` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 3) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:119— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:119-143 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:127-151 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:117-141 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 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. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:119` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:123` calls `setNeedsDisplay` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:118` does not — 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.
Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 3) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:28— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:28-49 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:22-42 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartTimeViewController.swift:19-39 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift` 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. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:28` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15–18 lines × 4) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:123— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift:123-140 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:131-148 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:121-138 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/RadarChartViewController.swift:154-168 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HalfPieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 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. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:95— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:95-109 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:86-99 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 122 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:95` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5–9 lines × 3) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:95— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:95-103 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:69-73 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:80-84 — 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 — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:95` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — 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' 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 — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 12) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/AnotherBarChartViewController.swift:96— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/AnotherBarChartViewController.swift:96-101 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:123-128 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift:126-131 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:153-158 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/HorizontalBarChartViewController.swift:120-125 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart1ViewController.swift:210-215 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:186-191 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:113-118 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/MultipleLinesChartViewController.swift:136-141 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:154-159 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:144-149 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:120-125 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift:126` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — 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 — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 8) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:68— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:68-75 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift:70-77 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart1ViewController.swift:102-109 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChartFilledViewController.swift:58-65 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/MultipleBarChartViewController.swift:84-91 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/MultipleLinesChartViewController.swift:64-71 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PieChartViewController.swift:66-73 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/PiePolylineChartViewController.swift:53-60 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CandleStickChartViewController.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart1ViewController.swift:99` calls `animate` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/BubbleChartViewController.swift:65` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:78— ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift:78-85 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift:83-90 | ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/ScatterChartViewController.swift:69-76 — before extracting anything, compare `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/CubicLineChartViewController.swift` and `ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/Demos/LineChart2ViewController.swift` 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. 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 — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Off the main sequence: DGCharts — DGCharts: abstractness 0.20, instability 0.00, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) Source/Charts/Charts/ChartViewBase.swift:769— `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Charts/ChartViewBase.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Charts/PieRadarChartViewBase.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/LegendRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Charts/PieChartView.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartData.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/RadarChartRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/Standard/ChartDataSet.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Utils/ViewPortHandler.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/BubbleChartRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Animation/ChartAnimationEasing.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Components/Legend.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ChartsDemo-iOS/Swift/DemoBaseViewController.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Data/Implementations/ChartBaseDataSet.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Components/AxisBase.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Data/Interfaces/ChartDataSetProtocol.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Animation/Animator.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/YAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Charts/HorizontalBarChartView.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
No direct assertions: testDefaultValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:93— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testDefaultBarDataSetLabels Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:100— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testZeroValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:108— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testPositiveValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:115— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testPositiveValuesWithCustomAxisMaximum Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:122— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testPositiveValuesWithCustomAxisMaximum2 Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:132— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testPositiveValuesWithCustomAxisMinimum Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:141— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testPositiveValuesWithCustomAxisMinimum2 Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:150— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testPositiveValuesWithCustomAxisMaximumAndCustomAxisMaximum Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:159— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNegativeValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:170— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNegativeValuesWithCustomAxisMaximum Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:177— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNegativeValuesWithCustomAxisMaximum2 Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:186— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNegativeValuesWithCustomAxisMinimum Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:195— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNegativeValuesWithCustomAxisMinimum2 Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:204— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNegativeValuesWithCustomAxisMaximumAndCustomAxisMaximum Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:213— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testHidesValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:224— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testNotDrawValueAboveBars Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:233— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testStackedDrawValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:242— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testStackedNotDrawValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:250— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testStackedNotDrawValuesAboveBars Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:259— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testHideLeftAxis Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:268— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testHideRightAxis Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:277— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testInvertedLeftAxis Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:286— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testInvertedLeftAxisWithNegativeValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:295— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testInvertedLeftAxisWithPositiveValues Tests/ChartsTests/BarChartTests.swift:304— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 61 of 75 tests in `ChartsTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
Duplicated predicate Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift:318— `!viewPortHandler.isInBoundsLeft(pt.x) || !viewPortHandler.isInBoundsY(pt.y)` appears character-identically in 3 files — Source/Charts/Renderers/CandleStickChartRenderer.swift, Source/Charts/Renderers/LineChartRenderer.swift, Source/Charts/Renderers/ScatterChartRenderer.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:235— `axis.labelPosition == .bottom || axis.labelPosition == .bottomInside || axis.labelPosition == .bothSided` appears character-identically in 2 files — Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift, Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift:224— `axis.labelPosition == .top || axis.labelPosition == .topInside || axis.labelPosition == .bothSided` appears character-identically in 2 files — Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRenderer.swift, Source/Charts/Renderers/XAxisRendererHorizontalBarChart.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Color.swift:35— `canImport(AppKit) && !targetEnvironment(macCatalyst)` appears character-identically in 4 files — Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Color.swift, Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Gestures.swift, Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Graphics.swift, Source/Charts/Utils/Platform+Touch Handling.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:117— `value == 0.0 && (posY == 0.0 || negY == 0.0)` appears character-identically in 2 files — Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift, Source/Charts/Renderers/HorizontalBarChartRenderer.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:446— `xAxis.isEnabled && xAxis.isDrawLabelsEnabled` appears character-identically in 2 files — Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift, Source/Charts/Charts/RadarChartView.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Most significant orphaned file · ×3
Most significant orphaned file Source/Charts/Charts/BarLineChartViewBase.swift:1— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/BarChartRenderer.swift:1— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file Source/Charts/Renderers/PieChartRenderer.swift:1— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` 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 (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — 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 `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 3.3/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (20814 LoC, 193 module-visible types across 14 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
Dormant codebase — 100 of 100 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 100 separate risks. Counted over 100 of the 185 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` 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.
P10 · Library API & versioning· Large public API surface · ×1
Large public API surface — 157/190 types (83%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
Logging is not universal — Only 1/2 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `ChartsDemo-macOS`.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2838 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's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
Outdated: swift-snapshot-testing — `swift-snapshot-testing` is resolved at 1.11.0, but 1.19.7 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-snapshot-testing within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-snapshot-testing` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a1672e-7924-7bd2-86e2-3d8b89783fbc · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 7 · Warnings: 241 · Recommendations: 179 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 05:14 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.