{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D3","name":"God Classes","shortDescription":{"text":"God Classes"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D3"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D8","name":"Code Coverage","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Coverage"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D8"},{"id":"D9","name":"Test Distribution","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Distribution"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D9"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D17","name":"Explicit Debt","shortDescription":{"text":"Explicit Debt"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D17"},{"id":"D19","name":"Documentation Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D19"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D22","name":"Internal API Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Internal API Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D22"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"]}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AX9","name":"CQS / query purity","shortDescription":{"text":"CQS / query purity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX9"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NavigationDrawerController.handleLeftViewPanGesture (cyclomatic 18): NavigationDrawerController.handleLeftViewPanGesture has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (NavigationDrawerController.handleRightViewPanGesture) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1166}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"63ac2541d41f1a1ab8da0deb4423098deb5a178e87fa9343ff9d38d5ad260e06"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NavigationDrawerController.handleRightViewPanGesture (cyclomatic 18): NavigationDrawerController.handleRightViewPanGesture has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (NavigationDrawerController.handleLeftViewPanGesture) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1224}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dedc74309e06aa3b1297bed273cebd4daa0cfe29f443ffead8b40b7cd44541e0"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Grid.reload (cyclomatic 17): Grid.reload has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Grid/Grid.swift"},"region":{"startLine":198}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e2ceda43ac869c50b25df4f9467a75aebe9b4da50126175b123741bcb7a867af"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"BottomNavigationController.handleTransitionPan (cognitive 29): BottomNavigationController.handleTransitionPan has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/BottomTabBar/BottomNavigationController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":167}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8fd11d00a5ddde4eb305e7630673bc1c8e96cd2bad6de26f575b4bd1484da7fe"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TabsController.handleTransitionPan (cognitive 27): TabsController.handleTransitionPan has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 12). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction \u2014 a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full \u2014 so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Tab/TabsController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":362}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bb52ed2622bc4367b190143149a01dac401e69b15ce37cac83ef9dcc8dcaa8ca"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Grid.reload (cognitive 25): Grid.reload has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (12 pts), if/else 6 (8 pts), loops 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Grid/Grid.swift"},"region":{"startLine":198}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e0da55f572cc66132ba3f1c0cc8ff3d720e14b05552d39317e9bff0bed2413ef"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NavigationDrawerController.setLeftViewWidth (cognitive 22): NavigationDrawerController.setLeftViewWidth has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (22 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (NavigationDrawerController.setRightViewWidth) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":501}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"112edc8f28001a742b54aeaae485f371138294ff4910164c4d616f4f031c1b67"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NavigationDrawerController.setRightViewWidth (cognitive 22): NavigationDrawerController.setRightViewWidth has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (22 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (NavigationDrawerController.setLeftViewWidth) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":587}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"95395090168003089dfe906147d7c09bee0cc06720340b578d7a435723873faf"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"UIImage.blur (cognitive 22): UIImage.blur has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Extension/Material\u002BUIImage.swift"},"region":{"startLine":299}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8f43feea9b4613074d8fa3fc6b2be122b94db36a43c253d8160a84b91ce2435f"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NavigationDrawerController.handleLeftViewPanGesture (cognitive 21): NavigationDrawerController.handleLeftViewPanGesture has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 3 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (NavigationDrawerController.handleRightViewPanGesture) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1166}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b31a59f1c74c7d59b5a100a05bc087c0b63f621dbcbfa5c7b5186d0aecabb3dc"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NavigationDrawerController.handleRightViewPanGesture (cognitive 21): NavigationDrawerController.handleRightViewPanGesture has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 3 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (NavigationDrawerController.handleLeftViewPanGesture) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1224}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"385f341034e76e98a38265d74755af767c550f491baddfd6338861b281c06baf"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Bar.layoutSubviews (cognitive 16): Bar.layoutSubviews has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Bar/Bar.swift"},"region":{"startLine":168}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3e88d39db89d0189414781cd65e123bc03018cb8c85702a2c650af9bd49ff854"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TooManyMethods: Layout: TooManyMethods \u2014 86 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 56 over it, 2.87\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Layout/Layout.swift"},"region":{"startLine":110}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"156944f8c38183038ca0b690c75bd68b1642892c78e1e54f9bf7686b46525d91"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TooManyMethods: NavigationDrawerController: TooManyMethods \u2014 45 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 15 over it, 1.50\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":134}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"014a0039bc6f03b0a417eee4601ba61abeac667a67959b1405096f12328260f0"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TooManyMethods: TextField: TooManyMethods \u2014 41 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 11 over it, 1.37\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift"},"region":{"startLine":61}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"90cb26fe44019107010af2cc2662e0367364ee8c982e79c85b7958327ababdbe"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FileTooLong: NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift: FileTooLong \u2014 580 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 68% of them inside a single declaration: NavigationDrawerController (136-1031). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 80 over it, 1.16\u00D7 the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body \u2014 the parts that share the same inputs and are named together \u2014 into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a5e48520f44697fa44510cc8090481fa2180801c2dafd790ad9891b764e5a057"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Near-duplicate member pair (48 shared lines): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:501-575 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:587-661 \u2014 These two members are variants of one another: 48 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\u0027 grain \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":501}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3a42038a34c5e1c47d44d79a074301101b8329f921c7f4ede9ff069a77fff0c7"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:224-242 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:254-271 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:283-303 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:349-369 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:415-435 \u2014 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 \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift"},"region":{"startLine":224}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d2958a817aef41a9bea31ff092382dfe45212029128868a777f265af3e0a5c38"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:691-730 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:738-778 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:786-825 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:833-872 \u2014 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 \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":691}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"15df3600a26856d079167a3b719eb2cd33446d9c4b67ffa76c687e7f9d22b807"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (20 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:526-545 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:612-631 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:526\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":526}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9ca633adc365ac1cdd3501323b1014b903df58f7361144d7e709268f09bc5ebb"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/SearchBar/SearchBarController.swift:91-105 | Sources/iOS/Toolbar/ToolbarController.swift:92-106 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/SearchBar/SearchBarController.swift:91\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/SearchBar/SearchBarController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":91}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bdc4fea60812b090b7e4528db74df0a3aa251fff097d382bb492b365124f585e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:511-524 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:597-610 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:511\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":511}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f1d8b47081c08e4b9aedbec1047f66aed0f348f8aade4e2913cb6100dd3433dc"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:550-563 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:636-649 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:550\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":550}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6103ac5d219613b32f2b3650113395d6bae647b3246d13b6a432e99b03c8d66f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:316-328 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:382-394 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:316\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift"},"region":{"startLine":316}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e3226d3415cd5dc9c69e30f5c32275b478333166c1ad4420ad1d8fa53e5a4027"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Bar/Bar.swift:181-193 | Sources/iOS/Bar/Bar.swift:198-210 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Bar/Bar.swift:181\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Bar/Bar.swift"},"region":{"startLine":181}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"eed1daa705ddfa5c25158f13e8f416e095fb164995d927fd32cee8801788882c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:810-821 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:857-868 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:810\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":810}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cfe4db5e81d835b41f5c4a54e8af2ad2d6524e849899542526ae20b16ba361d8"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (2\u201311 lines \u00D7 5): Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:225-235 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:255-256 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:285-295 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:351-361 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:417-427 \u2014 all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:225\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift"},"region":{"startLine":225}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"558eac9b170a2c6ba172c012f928256b91d025abb6c240868bc5b4f80306fbd7"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 3): Sources/iOS/Card/Card.swift:191-201 | Sources/iOS/Card/ImageCard.swift:91-101 | Sources/iOS/Card/PresenterCard.swift:70-80 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Card/Card.swift:191\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Card/Card.swift"},"region":{"startLine":191}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"04f7fc3515b014842f40c0deeab503ce1a200b0fc51ea106da931596561e5dcd"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift:313-323 | Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift:610-620 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift:313\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift"},"region":{"startLine":313}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3fd3ed2a2f2b03b40aceefb1be0e22e82d71eacafbff9e7424b0f1622b595c86"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 3): Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:320-329 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:386-395 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:454-463 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:320\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift"},"region":{"startLine":320}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0cb4174eca9cf10b978eb903bed4b24c2fc42e5a56312fe4bb9477950fcd769b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Chip/ChipBar.swift:283-292 | Sources/iOS/Tab/TabBar.swift:466-475 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Chip/ChipBar.swift:283\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060Sources/iOS/Tab/TabBar.swift:464\u0060 calls \u0060sizeToFit\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Chip/ChipBar.swift:281\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Chip/ChipBar.swift"},"region":{"startLine":283}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"613d23d19f5f394488d8c5e3364fa3545caea8cfc0fb99e38418a11fd6d992ee"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:132-139 | Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:161-168 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift:132\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Animation/SpringAnimation.swift"},"region":{"startLine":132}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"665d138b8f9667ab0739a9abf4c4f4aaafadb918df015707a1f553a9f6b077a9"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 4): Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:713-717 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:760-764 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:803-807 | Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:850-854 \u2014 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 \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift:713\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":713}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1de586d6f79a46873768961b34bfbf6c4ebe3ce866fba2f4aa7204fe30b769b4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift:330-334 | Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift:650-654 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift:330\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift"},"region":{"startLine":330}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b1699d6882432b9d8c17f65b65c38ed02a6d0180561784f0fade3f36f508de5e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 5): Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift:222-227 | Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionReusableView.swift:229-234 | Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionViewCell.swift:187-192 | Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift:118-123 | Sources/iOS/View/PulseView.swift:75-80 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file\u0027s lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it \u2014 treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift:110\u0060 calls \u0060layoutDivider\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift:214\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift"},"region":{"startLine":222}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"656faa964cc0a8c3a2ba816c4c2eb61e17c28a5a454042c657229d135131f506"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift:248-253 | Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift:498-503 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift"},"region":{"startLine":248}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"25086226e043dce80e033a7e4051105d10262514b33cbaff648389a20884af83"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift:272-279 | Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift:545-552 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/Editor.swift"},"region":{"startLine":272}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a5620555a1d82c3a7842c1c913b6030f8df12b15918a6ed0f81e74f125588cad"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Button/FABButton.swift:36-43 | Sources/iOS/Button/RaisedButton.swift:35-42 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Sources/iOS/Button/FABButton.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Button/RaisedButton.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file\u0027s lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it \u2014 treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Button/FABButton.swift"},"region":{"startLine":36}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3dc1a5fc094d27e301fcadc2ca220e213ba15feda1564de1258919e14bf6ea6a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/iOS/Card/Card.swift:94-103 | Sources/iOS/Card/PresenterCard.swift:47-56 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Card/Card.swift"},"region":{"startLine":94}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ee4d901245de42a74659f1dcffe622083636b8f422e0bddbf8219dd7511be944"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: NavigationController (LCOM4 8): NavigationController\u0027s methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Navigation/NavigationController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":41}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a69b737085c21d9c7be2470dd7cf2066a7e948fbecd143f99a9ac45c50879a02"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: BottomNavigationController (LCOM4 6): BottomNavigationController\u0027s 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 \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/BottomTabBar/BottomNavigationController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":49}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9661487bd20e033644ca0e7ccef569ccaca90d58978334e04dfc13c8c101a72b"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: TextField (LCOM4 5): TextField\u0027s methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift"},"region":{"startLine":61}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6482e89f3bda40ec12bb463fa242d9a3900483bfd8e59c930110db7c8fdc0502"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: Button (LCOM4 4): Button\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift"},"region":{"startLine":29}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1de8fcbb204a153e48aba3c377ed5ea1209236a228f608f83832a7407528d22b"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: CollectionViewController (LCOM4 4): CollectionViewController\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionViewController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":49}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c204a44fe3f0636bb2f83838a56bb8c0ec892aa5f44ed88a9008cd4113f005c"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: DialogController (LCOM4 4): DialogController\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Dialogs/DialogController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":29}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"02592f1f7e5f2c5b2c0108d208369c74a7668fa6b0a12268e42848be98bf5b24"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: TableViewController (LCOM4 4): TableViewController\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":49}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"de09aac7b7208d8259a3b3052bce4625d3b6e9e01d4e28a67d9198cb949568a0"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: TextView (LCOM4 4): TextView\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/TextView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":85}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8a64ddbfec61ea066f3ba253f1df5d13f6772b78a0c88ab55792d48caed2373f"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: UIView (LCOM4 4): UIView\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Divider/Divider.swift"},"region":{"startLine":136}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d1eebe912c2cd51a7bd2fdfdc7a9736b028196cf8b1eebb421f802f1e3ad242d"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: UIImage (LCOM4 4): UIImage\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Extension/Material\u002BUIImage.swift"},"region":{"startLine":45}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4d1db04bd277a041ae153a6459e51d884f77c9acd9b535829fd310f1832bf9c9"}},{"ruleId":"D8","level":"error","message":{"text":"No automated tests: No automated tests \u2014 no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3132564c6310e5d01a231f252a02d5d2f5a542c0a8fa29a14c89693f1e3df871"}},{"ruleId":"D9","level":"note","message":{"text":"No tests found: No test suite could be collected \u2014 no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c9bf64cbb5a4ae13d6bcd01fa3bc8d2879d860c73bc67f176ee3c2cecb8adce3"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: Sources/iOS/Grid/Grid.swift: Sources/iOS/Grid/Grid.swift changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 17 in Grid.reload at line 198. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons \u2014 this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2019-07-19..2019-10-17, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272019-07-19 11:27:54 -04:00\u0027 --until=\u00272019-10-17 11:27:54 -04:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- Sources/iOS/Grid/Grid.swift\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Grid/Grid.swift"},"region":{"startLine":198}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cf39b0f80037cbe163d7899c85f57e5c81b787cff04a37935808f29adca7f9b0"}},{"ruleId":"D22","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Typo in property name \u0027selecetedButtons\u0027 (missing \u0027c\u0027).: Rename to \u0027selectedButtons\u0027 to match \u0027selectedIndices\u0027 and standard English spelling. (signatures: iOS.CheckButtonGroup.selecetedButtons: [CheckButton] | iOS.CheckButtonGroup.selectedIndices: [Int])"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fe40703a987fd1c796577a0d06c44715630e6d07ed8edb59a1f4a92d83f41d3d"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"691b4915cbadd6e9658f6145326ffb6a5d817a8c359dd3345a167604657b3a13"},"properties":{"commitSha":"7fbf127f07ec5b688db47032ecc4fc994e42548a"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0df1bf6ff0c6938e0379ed6d37089edecb9efff7d730eb51a791b00c2ec0a687"},"properties":{"commitSha":"7fbf127f07ec5b688db47032ecc4fc994e42548a"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7ddc9448d452aae68649aae658dd9af413a1602ea7a14c0b3ae47e9a1d72e060"},"properties":{"commitSha":"7f0fb966b2aad47aad761c5390eaa15ea2bd2b36"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dd6012450009f091f148986d9fff079eefdd4fa35e0641da10e013b5e9a9b75e"},"properties":{"commitSha":"7f0fb966b2aad47aad761c5390eaa15ea2bd2b36"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3cdfd7beb31b791ae18dcb425e21eb157c842e7bbcd522cc330573c1a6538db1"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Dormant codebase: 73 of 73 significant files have no living knowledge \u2014 the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 73 separate risks. Counted over 73 of the 99 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."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4c69f1e54b7dd6fe9029dd02df6ba8f8145b789f2f18dbdaa086c40ded49dba6"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Most significant orphaned file: One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge \u2014 ranked by size weighted by the file\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Layout/Layout.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0554b8062ddee86d5e1c017c4f6d90ae57ee951e624ffc6073f0e0f1c6508b69"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Most significant orphaned file: One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge \u2014 ranked by size weighted by the file\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/NavigationDrawer/NavigationDrawerController.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"197a814d72d6c4930c838964ac17c107761e1f8afcb8517f1c4bd5c0821eed2b"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Most significant orphaned file: One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge \u2014 ranked by size weighted by the file\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Color/Color.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"177adbd810a4f9cf368332d1f0acf29b092e9ff84ec97ed7e91d13c785abc66c"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: CollectionReusableView.swift \u2192 CollectionViewCell.swift, TableViewCell.swift, PulseView.swift: \u0060Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionReusableView.swift\u0060 changes together with 3 other files \u2014 \u0060Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionViewCell.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/View/PulseView.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionReusableView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5acb5199659541a55ce7f46987148113c3260971d9ffbfd8acb332825575b97e"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: Button.swift \u2192 CollectionReusableView.swift, CollectionViewCell.swift, Layer.swift, TableViewCell.swift, TextView.swift, PulseView.swift, View.swift: \u0060Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift\u0060 changes together with 7 other files \u2014 \u0060Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionReusableView.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionViewCell.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/Layer/Layer.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextView.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/View/PulseView.swift\u0060, \u0060Sources/iOS/View/View.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 7 separate couplings, not 7 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 7."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Button/Button.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6b4f5de8629834658b4bbd729df33e51323c4008a7bdb790e1e864a4a361e928"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: CollectionViewCell.swift \u2194 TableViewCell.swift: \u0060Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift\u0060 change together 87% of the time (80 of the 92 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 80 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u006037ee9527\u0060 updated for Motion submodule access (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/CollectionViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/TableViewCell.swift\u0060); \u0060e207c4f3\u0060 trying another attempt to Motion file inclusion (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/CollectionViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/TableViewCell.swift\u0060); \u00607562c098\u0060 trying Motion as a direct git clone (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/CollectionViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/TableViewCell.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Collection/CollectionViewCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"644236a6a8bd87e9e956c8fa96e5e98e78b5f195fafdc5a06aee9a22362f882d"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: Layer.swift \u2194 View.swift: \u0060Sources/iOS/Layer/Layer.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/View/View.swift\u0060 change together 71% of the time (42 of the 59 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 42 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00605a50bc7a\u0060 development: issue-643: Fixed issue, where Layout was not anchoring c\u2026 (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/Layer.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/View.swift\u0060); \u0060f45e8ec6\u0060 development: cleanup to Pulse API when calling pulse method (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/Layer.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/View.swift\u0060); \u00604fd30c70\u0060 development: divided Device into Application, Device, and Screen to e\u2026 (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/Layer.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/View.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Layer/Layer.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a316bb69b56648ebfce049601616c7cfe43fa4273b55006bf5812088e52887d0"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: TextField.swift \u2194 TextView.swift: \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/Text/TextView.swift\u0060 change together 53% of the time (43 of the 81 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 43 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060f0d2b907\u0060 Moved hard-coded RobotoFont to Theme.font (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/TextField.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/TextView.swift\u0060); \u0060f47bdadf\u0060 Added missing comments (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/TextField.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/TextView.swift\u0060); \u006093dd75be\u0060 Sync placeholderLabel alignment with TextView (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/TextField.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/TextView.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Text/TextField.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"10d17c08c14ad45fac8dda194d486efd2efc97ff7a9ee4abc85fe01bf2152d00"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: TableViewCell.swift \u2194 PulseView.swift: \u0060Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/View/PulseView.swift\u0060 change together 51% of the time (47 of the 92 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 47 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u006037ee9527\u0060 updated for Motion submodule access (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/TableViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/PulseView.swift\u0060); \u0060e207c4f3\u0060 trying another attempt to Motion file inclusion (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/TableViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/PulseView.swift\u0060); \u00607562c098\u0060 trying Motion as a direct git clone (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/iOS/TableViewCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/iOS/PulseView.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/iOS/Table/TableViewCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4b2e2fade6ebe72cc66fa092e4e0b4a5eb9d621faf8e00383463f098dc2f4b3a"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No architecture diagram/doc: No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named \u0060architecture\u0060 or \u0060design\u0060 in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape \u2014 no \u0060## Architecture\u0060 heading, no \u0022architecture overview\u0022/\u0022high-level design\u0022 phrasing, no \u0022the architecture is \u2026\u0022 introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document \u2014 not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c190e7c159d1850ee706c3ac4486e151e8a4fe169de4bf61436b9f399654f06"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: Sample Projects claim points to Samples, which is an external GitHub repo; Material\u0027s README claims Sample Projects but omits any mention of it in its own documentation \u2014 reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9cd25bbd394fb416e82854bd91eac390172eb70ad45730c49506f9a884c3c42a"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: The README claims Material is \u0027a growing project\u0027 but there are no Change Log, versioned commits, or dependency manifests in the evidence \u2014 reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"12d1d5a569d7379fdf5ec5358617b53a9d8dc275b06ccd691d23efd4bab7eba3"}},{"ruleId":"P1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"No CI pipeline: No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, \u2026) \u2014 changes aren\u0027t gated by an automated build/test."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"44f01af96e50474fba2df84d95ddf4f7e1d34c29c307830b9efc9057daa6b670"}},{"ruleId":"P3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No SAST: No static application security testing detected. For this repository\u0027s stack, add CodeQL\u0027s Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or \u0060semgrep --config=auto\u0060, which runs on any language) \u2014 this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen \u2014 if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54424179c892f03ef2fd003130ac4bd43f39bbf3b1ca0a0143e25acb80ec87"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"OS Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"OS Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"SQL Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"SQL Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Code Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":5,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}},"redactionTokens":["A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."]}]}