Public report — CompuMaster.Data, published 1 Oct 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_eafd491c25cb480c8d253c668c16013a
Filed 1 October 2026, 15:13 UTC
Public
Small · 18,098 LoC · 13 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (48%)
Findings by grade
20 critical232 serious65 minor39 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
1 October 2026, 15:11 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
289findings with an exact file:lineof 317 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
37/120dimensions across the health lenses18098 LoC · 13 projects — wide & deep
The system holds an adequate standing with an overall health score of 55%, indicating a workable asset that carries real operational risk. While the architecture is solid, the low maturity and readiness scores suggest that changes are becoming slower and more fragile over time. This is a small system, comprising roughly 18,000 lines of production code, with a rebuild cost estimated at just €25,000. However, the value at stake is not in the size but in the velocity tax applied to every modification. The code quality signals imply a 4–9% drag on development speed, meaning the team pays a hidden premium in engineer-days for every change, a cost that compounds as the codebase grows.
The primary risk is a lack of institutional memory, reflected in a maturity score of 48%. Without documented decisions, new team members face a steep learning curve, and existing staff risk repeating past mistakes or making inconsistent choices. This gap creates a significant barrier to reliable delivery and increases the likelihood of defects slipping into production. The second major theme is a velocity tax on every change. The average code quality score of 6.4 out of 10 acts as a friction point, slowing down development and increasing the effort required to maintain the system. This inefficiency is not a one-time cost but an ongoing expense that erodes the team’s capacity to innovate.
Despite these challenges, the system’s architecture is strong, scoring 80%, which provides a stable foundation for future changes. The code is also well-structured, with no boilerplate or straight-line logic, indicating a thoughtful design approach. To address the most critical issues, the team should first focus on documenting significant decisions. Creating a simple repository of architectural decision records will pay for itself quickly by reducing onboarding time and preventing costly rework. This single action offers the highest leverage, breaking even within months and freeing up resources for other improvements. The picture is partial, as several key areas like security and performance were not measured, so the assessment should be viewed as a starting point for deeper investigation.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.8× (at 55% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€25,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 48% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — desktop/game × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Utils.vb, DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb, DataQuery.Connections.vb.
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 1.4–8.4 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~13,862 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–26 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 4–9% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 3,418 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~13,862/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.4/10 ⇒ a 4–9% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 26 months.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 48%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.4/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 4–9% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.4/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
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 — module dependency matrix
Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
13 modules, 7 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 3 modules, marked above the diagonal.
Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
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
A03:2021 — Injection
15
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a clear architecture record through dated decision logs and resolving existing gaps in ADR quality to ensure design intent is preserved. Simultaneously, improve onboarding and maintenance by adding a testing guide to the README and cleaning up orphaned utility files. Finally, reorganize the repository structure to separate production code from tooling, ensuring a clean and scalable project layout.
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.
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Utils.vb, DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb, DataQuery.Connections.vb.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
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 — 20
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 — 232
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 — 65
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 39
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. 34 of 37 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 0.8 — 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 — 37 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, 289 of 317 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.
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. The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. No coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us. You can widen what we reach: optional: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output anywhere in the repo, or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
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 reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.
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. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (3 contributor(s) across 399 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 99% of the history; the other 2 hold 0.5% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — 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. At 18k LoC across 13 projects this is a large multi-module system that clearly needs explicit bounded contexts. Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can 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"]`.
D39 IL Efficiency — 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. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's build of this repository exited 1 and the cause could not be attributed, so no assemblies were produced and there was no IL to read. We do not read it as a defect in the repository: an unattributed failure leans OURS. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
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: 2 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, or an npm dev script. None was found, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
M3 Folder & project structure — 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. Whether the tests sit apart from production code is not visible here, because the suite is not in a form this pass reads. The test-separation credit is granted rather than withheld: this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about the repository's tests. You can widen what we reach: keep the test surface somewhere a reader can find it without opening a binary — an exported/checked-in test source tree beside the production code makes the suite reviewable, diffable and discoverable by tooling.
P2 Observability — 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. Observability was not assessed: this check recognises the logging, tracing/metrics and health-check idioms of .NET, the JVM, Go, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Ruby, PHP, Swift, Dart, Elixir and Erlang, and most of this repository's production source is in none of them. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — 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. Those languages have allocation-aware idioms of their own, but this check does not read them yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is careless with allocations.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X14 Bypassable address classification — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X20 Mistyped argument 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X21 Side-effecting pattern 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X3 Exception handling — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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 Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java/Kotlin/Scala, Ruby, PHP and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and none of those languages 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.
Repo exclusion declarations: 4 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.
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.
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.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
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").
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
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.
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.
27 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DataTables.SqlJoinTables at 58. A further 1 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 CsvTools.CsvEncode at 18 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 22 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 DataTables.SqlJoinTables (cyclomatic 58) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with DataTables.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues (cyclomatic 53) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CsvTools.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Manipulation.AddMissingColumnsCommandText (cyclomatic 48) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Manipulation.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.
+ 54 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues (cognitive 150) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with CsvTools.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DataTables.SqlJoinTables (cognitive 138) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DataTables.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DataTables.CreateDataTableClone (cognitive 108) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DataTables.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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 Classes7.8 / 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 7 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DataTables.vb, Utils.vb, DataTablesTools.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with DataTables.vb, Utils.vb, Csv.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DataTables.vb (2), CsvTools.vb, Manipulation.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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.
60 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 5 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 34 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb (2), DataTables.vb (2), DataQuery.Connections.vb. — 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 DataTables.vb (2), Csv.vb, CsvTools.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb (2), CsvTools.vb, DataQuery.Connections.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
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 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with DataQuery.DataProvider.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
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.
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.
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
1 of 169 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 15 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 150 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
Banned license: EPPlus
What to do
Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce License Compliance in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CsvTools.vb, DataQuery.TestFile.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 28 ObsoleteWithCallers finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DataTables.vb (20), Csv.vb (5), DataTablesTools.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 warning-level).
Resolve the 27 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CsvTools.vb (5), DataGridView.vb (4), DataTables.vb (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 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 solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
13 projects, 223 source files, 24002 hand-written lines of code (18098 production / 5904 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 492 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 9 inter-project edges.
Thin analysable surface across projects
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d18_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 root README (CompuMaster.Data) is a well-written single document that states what the library does and gives installation commands for both NuGet packages. It opens with an overview of the project and links to release and NuGet badges, then walks through a fillDataTable sample in VB.NET and C# showing how one line fills a complete DataTable from an OleDb connection, illustrating its main value proposition. The document is clipped mid-sentence but the outline lists all the sections present (Simple download/installation using NuGet; Some of the many features - all .Net data providers; Some of the many features - CSV; DataTables - your in-memory relational database system; ...).
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README (CompuMaster.Data) is a well-written single document that states what the library does and gives installation commands for both NuGet packages. It opens with an overview of the project and links to release and NuGet badges, then walks through a fillDataTable sample in VB.NET and C# showing how one line fills a complete DataTable from an OleDb connection, illustrating its main value proposition. The document is clipped mid-sentence but the outline lists all the sections present (Simple download/installation using NuGet; Some of the many features - all .Net data providers; Some of the many features - CSV; DataTables - your in-memory relational database system; ...).
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.
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
50 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
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).
15 finding(s): 0 critical, 15 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 10 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. semgrep hit a parse error in 3 file(s) — `NDoc/MSDN/doc/CompuMaster.Data.Csv.ReadDataTableFromCsvFile_overload_3.html` (lines 1–29), `NDoc/MSDN/doc/CompuMaster.Data.Csv.ReadDataTableFromCsvString_overload_4.html` (lines 1–29), `NDoc/MSDN/doc/CompuMaster.Data.Csv.WriteDataTableToCsvBytes_overload_2.html` (lines 1–29) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 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 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 10 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 (10 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 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.
27 of 32 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb. Counted over 32 of the 42 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Most significant orphaned file · ×3CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Utils.vb, DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb, DataQuery.Connections.vb. — 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.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 4 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. 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 · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
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 a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
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.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
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 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.
What to do
The .NET analyzers are running but not blocking — tighten them (set <AnalysisMode>All</AnalysisMode>, or treat analyzer warnings as errors on CI) so a security/quality regression fails the build rather than scrolling past as a warning.
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.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
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.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — 78 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 user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — 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.
D10 Test Quality — ~5990 lines of test source are present (.vb) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
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.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.vb) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (2 event handler(s))
ED5 Idempotency — 2 mutating command handler(s)/consumer(s) detected and 4 handler method(s) walked, but no persistent write was recognised in any of them — idempotency not assessed
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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'.
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check recognises the logging, tracing/metrics and health-check idioms of .NET, the JVM, Go, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Ruby, PHP, Swift, Dart, Elixir and Erlang, and most of this repository's production source is in none of them. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) 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 a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, 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.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Allocation awareness was not assessed: this repository holds Visual Basic, whose allocation-aware idioms this check does not model yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
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
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
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 reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — 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 — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, 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 — 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
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.
EmptyCatchBlock CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:721— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.TestFile.vb:63— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
Banned license: EPPlus — `EPPlus` 4.5.3.2 resolves to SPDX id LGPL-3.0-or-later, and this run's banned set is AGPL-3.0, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-3.0. The match is a SUBSTRING of the id, not an exact comparison — which is how variants like `-only` and `-or-later` are caught, and it is the rule to apply if you re-check this by hand. The set is policy, not law: it is configurable, so a licence banned here may be acceptable in your context, and the row is then something to record an exception for rather than to fix. ★ This arm reads the resolved package list and knows nothing about dependency SCOPE — it cannot tell a runtime dependency from a build- or test-only one, so unlike the Bundler arm it is NOT claiming this ships to your users. Check where it sits before acting. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 15 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 150 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
TodoComment CompuMaster.Data.Controls/CellCopyingContextMenu.vb:162— 'TODO: implement in CM.Data? — 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 CompuMaster.Data.Controls/DataGridView.vb:10— 'TODO: implement usual clipboard commands: Ctrl+C,V,X, Ctrl+Ins/Shift+Ins/Shift-Del — 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 CompuMaster.Data.Controls/DataGridView.vb:11— 'TODO: implement Ctrl+Space, Shift+Space, Ctrl+Shift+Space — 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 CompuMaster.Data.Controls/DataGridView.vb:12— 'TODO: fix bug that VS designer often moves Friend WithEvents DataGridView1 As CompuMaster.Data.Windows.DataGridView into a Dim DataGridView1 As CompuMaster.Data.Windows.DataGridView in InitializeComponent method (making it private and inaccessible, leading to compiler errors); e.g. just add an additional button into the form with the DataGridView and double-click the button to add event handler code: at this time you should already find compiler errors in your existing code which refers to the DataGridView — 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 CompuMaster.Data.Controls/DataGridView.vb:13— 'TODO: fix known bugs (ask JW) — 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 CompuMaster.Data.Web/GridEditQuery.vb:266— 'TODO: Retrieve Checkbox Value from RequestForm data correctly (because CheckBox.Checked contains the old data before change) — 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 CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvReadBaseOptions.vb:43— 'TODO: maybe "line" is incorrect, should be "row"? — 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 CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:226— 'TODO: consider line encoding arguments and support cell line breaks by considering the cell line break encoding — 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 CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:492— 'TODO: read cell line breaks correctly — 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 CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:524— 'TODO: read cell line breaks correctly — 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 CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:554— 'TODO: read cell line breaks correctly — 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 CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:586— 'TODO: read cell line breaks correctly — 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:599— ' 'ToDo: additional testings — 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:625— ' 'TODO: implementation — 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:1282— 'TODO: consider ignoreColumnNameCasing — 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:1283— 'TODO: performance improvement proofed with 3000lines-table — 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1413— 'TODO: verify/fix exceptions when left AND right table contain rows not matching to the other side (FULL OUTER JOIN situations) — 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1414— 'TODO: above ToDo "verify/fix exceptions" might not be applicable here?!? --> to remove ?!? — 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 CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:629— ' 'TODO: identify column names from WHERE clause in deleteCommandCreatedByCommandBuilder (for single-field-PKs as well as for multiple-field-PKs) — 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 CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:630— ' 'TODO: add to result array but without duplicates (what is a duplicate - case sensitive or case insensitive? Is it the same with all database-DDLs?) — 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 CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:10— '-> TODO: DbNullText implementation oder besser TextTableRenderOptions ? — 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 CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:11— '-> TODO: ColumnFormatting nicht in TextTable-Constructor !? — 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 CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:12— '-> TODO: above changes require complete redesign of arguments lists for constructor and ToString() — 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 CompuMaster.Test.Tools.Data/DataQuery.ConnectionsTest.vb:32— 'TODO: Unabh�ngigkeit von spezifischer Workstation mit Lw. G: — 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 CompuMaster.Test.Tools.Data/DataQuery.ConnectionsTest.vb:33— 'TODO: Sinnvolles Testing — 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.
FileTooLong: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb— FileTooLong — 2774 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2274 over it, 5.55× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb— FileTooLong — 1050 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 550 over it, 2.10× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb— FileTooLong — 1002 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 502 over it, 2.00× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb— FileTooLong — 920 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 420 over it, 1.84× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CsvTables/CsvTools.vb CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb— FileTooLong — 822 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 322 over it, 1.64× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb— FileTooLong — 529 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb— FileTooLong — 511 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.02× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: DataTables CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb— TooManyMethods — 2764 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 247 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 217 over it, 8.23× 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.
TooManyMethods: Utils CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb— TooManyMethods — 1044 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 105 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 75 over it, 3.50× 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: Csv CompuMaster.Data/Csv.vb— TooManyMethods — 314 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 69 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 39 over it, 2.30× 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: DataTablesTools CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb— TooManyMethods — 994 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 60 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 30 over it, 2.00× 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: AnyIDataProvider CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb— TooManyMethods — 911 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 60 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 30 over it, 2.00× 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: CsvTools CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb— TooManyMethods — 815 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× 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: CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:384— MethodTooLong — SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues runs 151 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 51 over it, 1.51× 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: DataTables.SqlJoinTables CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4066— MethodTooLong — SqlJoinTables runs 150 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 50 over it, 1.50× 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: DataTables.CreateDataTableClone CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:1141— MethodTooLong — CreateDataTableClone runs 140 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.40× 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: Manipulation.AddMissingColumnsCommandText CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:316— MethodTooLong — AddMissingColumnsCommandText runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× 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: TextRow.AppendEncodedString CompuMaster.Data/TextRow.vb:72— MethodTooLong — AppendEncodedString runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02× 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.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:130— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:130-142 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:291-303 — 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 (13 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:123— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:123-135 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1101-1113 — 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 (13 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:94— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:94-106 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:304-316 — 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 (13 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2548— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2548-2560 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2565-2577 — 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 (13 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2631— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2631-2643 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2648-2660 — 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 (10 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/Csv.vb:965— CompuMaster.Data/Csv.vb:965-974 | CompuMaster.Data/Csv.vb:988-997 — 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 (10 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1244— CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1244-1253 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1298-1307 — 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, `CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1308` calls `Write` and `CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1254` 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 (10 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2799— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2799-2808 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2842-2851 — 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 (10 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4763— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4763-4772 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4877-4886 — 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 (10 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1321— CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1321-1330 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1444-1453 — 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 (19 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:971— CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:971-989 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1275-1293 — 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 (19 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:972— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:972-990 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1042-1060 — 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 (19 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1108— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1108-1126 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1147-1165 — 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 (19 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:369— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:369-387 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:481-499 — 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 (16 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:831— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:831-846 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:954-969 — 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 (16 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1230— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1230-1245 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1344-1359 — 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 (16 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:728— CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:728-743 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:759-775 — 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 (12 lines × 4) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:144— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:144-155 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:182-193 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:305-316 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:388-399 — all 4 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:143` calls `Dispose` and `CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:181` 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 (12 lines × 4) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:829— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:829-840 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:888-899 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:952-963 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1022-1033 — all 4 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. 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 (12 lines × 4) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2549— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2549-2560 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2566-2577 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2632-2643 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2649-2660 — all 4 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. 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 (11 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:617— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:617-627 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:731-741 — 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 (11 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2310— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2310-2320 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2335-2345 — 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 (11 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2534— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2534-2544 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2617-2627 — 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 (9 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4313— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4313-4321 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4343-4351 — 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 (9 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1353— CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1353-1361 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1474-1482 — 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 (9 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1522— CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1522-1530 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1544-1553 — 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.
ClassTooLong: Connections CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb— ClassTooLong — 523 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 15 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 123 over it, 1.31× 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: Manipulation CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb— ClassTooLong — 504 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 104 over it, 1.26× 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 (24 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:809— CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:809-832 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:910-933 — 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 (24 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:331— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:331-354 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:448-471 — 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 (23 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:111— CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:111-133 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:145-167 — 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 (23 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:647— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:647-669 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:791-813 — 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 (20–21 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:663— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:663-683 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:692-711 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:719-738 — 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. 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. 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 (20–21 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:807— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:807-827 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:836-855 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:863-882 — 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. 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. 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 (15 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:622— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:622-636 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:683-697 — 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 (15 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:736— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:736-750 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:788-802 — 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 (14 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2551— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2551-2564 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2634-2647 — 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 (14 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:934— CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:934-947 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:969-982 — 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 (12 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:74— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:74-85 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:280-291 — 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 (12 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:411— CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:411-422 | CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:433-444 — 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) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1355— CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1355-1360 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1364-1369 — 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) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:367— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:367-372 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:413-418 — 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.
DataTables.SqlJoinTables (cyclomatic 58) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4066— DataTables.SqlJoinTables has cyclomatic complexity 58 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues (cyclomatic 53) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:384— CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues has cyclomatic complexity 53 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Manipulation.AddMissingColumnsCommandText (cyclomatic 48) CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:316— Manipulation.AddMissingColumnsCommandText has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithWithoutRequiredValuesInColumn (cyclomatic 39) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:49— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithWithoutRequiredValuesInColumn has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTables.CreateDataTableClone (cyclomatic 38) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:1141— DataTables.CreateDataTableClone has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithColumnValues (cyclomatic 37) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:162— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithColumnValues has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTables.ConvertToWikiTable (cyclomatic 31) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2293— DataTables.ConvertToWikiTable has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
CsvTools.WriteCellValue (cyclomatic 29) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1342— CsvTools.WriteCellValue has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
TextRow.AppendEncodedString (cyclomatic 29) CompuMaster.Data/TextRow.vb:72— TextRow.AppendEncodedString has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv (cyclomatic 28) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:805— CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataTables.FullJoinTables (cyclomatic 28) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:3238— DataTables.FullJoinTables has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Connections.MicrosoftAccessConnection (cyclomatic 27) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:242— Connections.MicrosoftAccessConnection has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithNoCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable (cyclomatic 27) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:641— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithNoCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (DataTables.RemoveRowsWithCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable (cyclomatic 27) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:785— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (DataTables.RemoveRowsWithNoCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTables.CompareValuesOfUnknownType (cyclomatic 25) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:3421— DataTables.CompareValuesOfUnknownType has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTablesTools.JoinTables (cyclomatic 25) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1283— DataTablesTools.JoinTables has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Connections.MicrosoftAccessOleDbConnection (cyclomatic 21) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:36— Connections.MicrosoftAccessOleDbConnection has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Connections.MicrosoftExcelConnection (cyclomatic 21) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:328— Connections.MicrosoftExcelConnection has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables (cyclomatic 21) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2529— DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTables.SqlJoin_IsEqual (cyclomatic 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4630— DataTables.SqlJoin_IsEqual has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
DataTablesTools.ConvertToHtmlTable (cyclomatic 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:828— DataTablesTools.ConvertToHtmlTable has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataTablesTools.CrossJoinTables (cyclomatic 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1411— DataTablesTools.CrossJoinTables has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Connections.MicrosoftExcelOleDbConnection (cyclomatic 18) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:445— Connections.MicrosoftExcelOleDbConnection has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables (cyclomatic 18) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2615— DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb holds 12 of the 27 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 188 of the 349 points over it (54%), 2.8× the next-largest file (CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Connections.MicrosoftAccessOdbcConnection (cyclomatic 17) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:129— Connections.MicrosoftAccessOdbcConnection has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv (cyclomatic 16) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:902— CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: CsvTools.CsvEncode (cyclomatic 18) 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.
Manipulation.UpdateCodeManipulatedData (cyclomatic 16) CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:745— Manipulation.UpdateCodeManipulatedData has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
HackComment CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb:1680— 'HACK: download twice, but now with 1st response's charset encoding information — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues (cognitive 150) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:384— CsvTools.SplitCsvLineIntoCellValues has cognitive complexity 150 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.SqlJoinTables (cognitive 138) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4066— DataTables.SqlJoinTables has cognitive complexity 138 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.CreateDataTableClone (cognitive 108) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:1141— DataTables.CreateDataTableClone has cognitive complexity 108 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithWithoutRequiredValuesInColumn (cognitive 104) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:49— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithWithoutRequiredValuesInColumn has cognitive complexity 104 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithColumnValues (cognitive 101) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:162— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithColumnValues has cognitive complexity 101 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TextRow.AppendEncodedString (cognitive 80) CompuMaster.Data/TextRow.vb:72— TextRow.AppendEncodedString has cognitive complexity 80 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithNoCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable (cognitive 79) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:641— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithNoCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (DataTables.RemoveRowsWithCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
DataTables.RemoveRowsWithCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable (cognitive 79) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:785— DataTables.RemoveRowsWithCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (DataTables.RemoveRowsWithNoCorrespondingValueInComparisonTable) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
CsvTools.WriteCellValue (cognitive 57) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1342— CsvTools.WriteCellValue has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Manipulation.AddMissingColumnsCommandText (cognitive 57) CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:316— Manipulation.AddMissingColumnsCommandText has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.FullJoinTables (cognitive 56) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:3238— DataTables.FullJoinTables has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTablesTools.JoinTables (cognitive 51) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1283— DataTablesTools.JoinTables has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv (cognitive 50) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:805— CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables (cognitive 50) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2529— DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables (cognitive 48) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2615— DataTables.SuggestColumnWidthsForFixedPlainTables has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Manipulation.UpdateCodeManipulatedData (cognitive 40) CompuMaster.Data/Manipulation.vb:745— Manipulation.UpdateCodeManipulatedData has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CsvTools.ReadDataTableFromCsvReader (cognitive 37) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:292— CsvTools.ReadDataTableFromCsvReader has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTablesTools.CrossJoinTables (cognitive 36) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1411— DataTablesTools.CrossJoinTables has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.ConvertToWikiTable (cognitive 34) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2293— DataTables.ConvertToWikiTable has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CsvTools.ReadDataTableFromCsvReader (cognitive 33) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:31— CsvTools.ReadDataTableFromCsvReader has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Connections.MicrosoftAccessConnection (cognitive 33) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:242— Connections.MicrosoftAccessConnection has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.CompareValuesOfUnknownType (cognitive 33) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:3421— DataTables.CompareValuesOfUnknownType has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTablesTools.ConvertToHtmlTable (cognitive 32) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:828— DataTablesTools.ConvertToHtmlTable has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GridEditQuery.RowUpdating_HandleBoundFields (cognitive 30) CompuMaster.Data.Web/GridEditQuery.vb:226— GridEditQuery.RowUpdating_HandleBoundFields has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataProvider.FindIDbDataApaterType (cognitive 29) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.DataProvider.vb:298— DataProvider.FindIDbDataApaterType has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (DataProvider.FindDbCommandBuilder) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
DataProvider.FindDbCommandBuilder (cognitive 29) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.DataProvider.vb:317— DataProvider.FindDbCommandBuilder has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (DataProvider.FindIDbDataApaterType) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Connections.MicrosoftAccessOleDbConnection (cognitive 28) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:36— Connections.MicrosoftAccessOleDbConnection has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataProvider.AvailableDataProviders (cognitive 28) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.DataProvider.vb:221— DataProvider.AvailableDataProviders has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Connections.MicrosoftExcelConnection (cognitive 25) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:328— Connections.MicrosoftExcelConnection has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTablesTools.ReArrangeDataColumns (cognitive 25) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1679— DataTablesTools.ReArrangeDataColumns has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv (cognitive 24) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:902— CsvTools.ConvertDataTableToCsv has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericDictionary (cognitive 24) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:951— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericDictionary has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericNullableDictionary) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericNullableDictionary (cognitive 24) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1021— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericNullableDictionary has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericDictionary) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Connections.MicrosoftExcelOleDbConnection (cognitive 22) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:445— Connections.MicrosoftExcelOleDbConnection has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataProvider.FindIDbCommandType (cognitive 22) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.DataProvider.vb:281— DataProvider.FindIDbCommandType has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CsvTools.WriteDataTableToCsvMemoryStream (cognitive 21) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1091— CsvTools.WriteDataTableToCsvMemoryStream has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (CsvTools.WriteDataViewToCsvFile) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
CsvTools.WriteDataViewToCsvFile (cognitive 21) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1215— CsvTools.WriteDataViewToCsvFile has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (CsvTools.WriteDataTableToCsvMemoryStream) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericKeyValuePairs (cognitive 21) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:828— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericKeyValuePairs has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericNullableKeyValuePairs) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericNullableKeyValuePairs (cognitive 21) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:887— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericNullableKeyValuePairs has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoGenericKeyValuePairs) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Connections.MicrosoftAccessOdbcConnection (cognitive 21) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:129— Connections.MicrosoftAccessOdbcConnection has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TextTable.ToString (cognitive 21) CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:394— TextTable.ToString has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTablesTools.LookupUniqueColumnName (cognitive 20) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1579— DataTablesTools.LookupUniqueColumnName has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Utils.ReadStringDataFromUri (cognitive 20) CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb:1656— Utils.ReadStringDataFromUri has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoGenericList (cognitive 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:500— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoGenericList has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoGenericNullableList) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoGenericNullableList (cognitive 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:551— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoGenericNullableList has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoGenericList) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoDictionaryEntryArray (cognitive 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:668— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoDictionaryEntryArray has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoHashtable) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoHashtable (cognitive 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:773— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoHashtable has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstTwoColumnsIntoDictionaryEntryArray) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
DataTablesTools.JoinTables (cognitive 19) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:1161— DataTablesTools.JoinTables has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TextTable.ToDataTable (cognitive 19) CompuMaster.Data/TextTable.vb:197— TextTable.ToDataTable has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CsvTools.WriteDataTableToCsvFile (cognitive 18) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:969— CsvTools.WriteDataTableToCsvFile has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (CsvTools.WriteDataViewToCsvFile) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
CsvTools.WriteDataViewToCsvFile (cognitive 18) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1272— CsvTools.WriteDataViewToCsvFile has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (CsvTools.WriteDataTableToCsvFile) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
DataTablesTools.ConvertToPlainTextTableInternal (cognitive 18) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:963— DataTablesTools.ConvertToPlainTextTableInternal has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CellCopyingContextMenu.CreateDataTableFromMarkedCells (cognitive 18) CompuMaster.Data.Controls/CellCopyingContextMenu.vb:168— CellCopyingContextMenu.CreateDataTableFromMarkedCells has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteNonQuery (cognitive 17) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:122— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteNonQuery has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Ldap.Query (cognitive 17) CompuMaster.Data/Ldap.vb:313— Ldap.Query has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
XlsReader.ReadDataTableFromXlsFile (cognitive 17) CompuMaster.Data/XlsReader.vb:33— XlsReader.ReadDataTableFromXlsFile has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteScalar (cognitive 16) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:286— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteScalar has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoArrayList (cognitive 16) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:452— AnyIDataProvider.ExecuteReaderAndPutFirstColumnIntoArrayList has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataTables.SqlJoin_IsEqual (cognitive 16) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4630— DataTables.SqlJoin_IsEqual has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Near-duplicate member pair (49 shared lines) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2531— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2531-2587 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2617-2670 — These two members are variants of one another: 49 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:453— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:453-482 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:616-644 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:669-705 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:730-758 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:774-810 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:829-868 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:888-927 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:952-997 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1022-1067 — These 9 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 9 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 9 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:39— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:39-106 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:131-178 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:245-316 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:331-387 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:402-433 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:448-499 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' 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 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:123— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:123-155 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:287-317 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1101-1130 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1143-1169 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1179-1198 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:123— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:123-155 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:172-193 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:287-317 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:378-400 — 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 (30 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:39— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:39-68 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:245-274 — 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 (29 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:670— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:670-698 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:814-842 — 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 (27 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:699— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:699-725 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:843-869 — 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 (22 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:726— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:726-747 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:870-891 — 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 (21 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4470— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4470-4490 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4537-4557 — 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 (20 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2568— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2568-2587 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:2651-2670 — 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 (18–19 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:193— CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:193-211 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTablesTools.vb:243-260 — 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 (18 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:465— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:465-482 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:688-705 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:793-810 — 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. 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 (17 lines × 6) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:628— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:628-644 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:742-758 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:852-868 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:911-927 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:981-997 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1051-1067 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one 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 (17 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:52— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:52-68 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:131-147 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:258-274 — 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. 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 (15–16 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/Ldap.vb:43— CompuMaster.Data/Ldap.vb:43-57 | CompuMaster.Data/Ldap.vb:318-333 — 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. 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 (15 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1116— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1116-1130 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1155-1169 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb:1184-1198 — 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.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:979— CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:979-990 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1229-1240 | CompuMaster.Data/CsvTables/CsvTools.vb:1283-1294 — 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:344— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:344-353 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:402-411 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:461-470 — 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.
Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:355— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:355-362 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:472-478 — 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 (8 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb:1665— CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb:1665-1672 | CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb:1683-1690 — 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 (7 lines × 4) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:42— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:42-48 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:248-254 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:334-340 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:451-457 — all 4 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. 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 (5–7 lines × 6) CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4745— CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4745-4751 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4752-4756 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4757-4763 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4859-4865 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4866-4870 | CompuMaster.Data/DataTables.vb:4871-4877 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one 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 × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:731— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:731-737 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:750-756 — 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 (5 lines × 2) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:159— CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:159-163 | CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb:297-301 — 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.
Low cohesion: DataProvider (LCOM4 6) CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.DataProvider.vb:12— DataProvider'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.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Most significant orphaned file · ×3
Most significant orphaned file CompuMaster.Data/Utils.vb— 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.AnyIDataProvider.vb— 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 CompuMaster.Data/DataQuery.Connections.vb— 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.
Thin analysable surface across projects — 2 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `DebugApp` with 44 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 91 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.73 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
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/`.
Dormant codebase — 27 of 32 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 27 separate risks. Counted over 32 of the 42 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.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
Outdated: System.Data.Odbc — System.Data.Odbc 6.0.0 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Data).
Outdated: System.Data.OleDb — System.Data.OleDb 6.0.0 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Data).
Outdated: System.Data.SqlClient — System.Data.SqlClient 4.8.6 → 4.9.1 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Data).
Outdated: System.DirectoryServices — System.DirectoryServices 6.0.0 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Data).
Outdated: CompuMaster.Data.XlsEpplus — CompuMaster.Data.XlsEpplus 3.0.2025.1230 → 3.0.2026.924 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Test.Data).
Outdated: CompuMaster.Web.TinyWebServerAdvanced — CompuMaster.Web.TinyWebServerAdvanced 2021.7.28.100 → 2024.11.4.100 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Test.Data).
Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.13.0 → 18.10.1 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Test.Data).
Outdated: Npgsql — Npgsql 6.0.11 → 10.0.3 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Test.Data).
Outdated: NUnit — NUnit 4.4.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Test.Data).
Outdated: NUnit3TestAdapter — NUnit3TestAdapter 5.2.0 → 6.3.0 available (referenced by CompuMaster.Test.Data).
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.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
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.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
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.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a0f805-8f82-7a1a-b649-ba371883d53e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 20 · Warnings: 232 · Recommendations: 55 · Info: 10 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 01-10-2026 @ 15:11 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.