Public report — Event-Management-System, published 20 Sep 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-2026.09.15 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_78843881038a43aa8df2e54092d70e88
Filed 25 September 2026, 05:08 UTC
Public
Small · 9,489 LoC · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (15%)
Findings by grade
1 critical177 serious9 minor50 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
20 September 2026, 20:44 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 ▸
178findings with an exact file:lineof 187 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
18/114dimensions across the health lenses9489 LoC — wide & deep
This system is a small, low-value asset with a fragile operational foundation. While the underlying code is clean and well-structured, the overall health score of 38% signals that the business is carrying unnecessary risk for a component that would cost only about €8,100 to rebuild. The primary danger is not the code itself, but the lack of safeguards to ensure it remains stable as changes are made.
The most critical vulnerability is the absence of operational readiness. With a readiness score of just 15%, there are no automated tests to catch errors before they reach production. This creates a high risk of defects slipping through, leading to potential outages or data issues that could damage customer trust. Because there is no safety net, every deployment is a gamble, and the cost of fixing a bug in production is significantly higher than preventing it in development.
Secondly, the codebase suffers from a hidden velocity tax. Although the architecture is sound, the average code quality is mediocre, meaning that every modification requires more effort than it should. This inefficiency compounds over time, slowing down feature delivery and increasing maintenance costs. While the system is small enough that this is manageable today, it will become a bottleneck as the business grows and demands faster iteration.
On the positive side, the code is simple, with no complex boilerplate or convoluted logic, making it easy to understand for new team members. The architecture is also robust, ensuring that changes do not cause unintended ripple effects. These strengths provide a solid base, but they are undermined by the lack of testing and automation.
The immediate priority is to establish a basic CI workflow that builds and runs tests on every change. This single action provides the highest leverage, creating a safety net that protects the asset and reduces the risk of future defects. Until this is in place, the system remains exposed to preventable operational failures.
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.
175 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.
D4 · Near-duplicate member pair (36 shared lines) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java
D4 · Near-duplicate member pair (33 shared lines) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (83 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (40 members, 50+ identical tokens) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java
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.
0.7× (at 38% 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 ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€8,100 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 15% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · 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 automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 15%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
A velocity tax on every change · REDACTED · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 5.1/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 7–16% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D4 code quality: averaging 5.1/10 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.
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
59
REDACTED
Roadmap
First, establish a CI workflow that builds the code and runs the test suite on every push to ensure immediate feedback. Integrate security scanning tools into this pipeline so that security regressions fail the build, while simultaneously addressing the single finding in code coverage and the missing tests in test distribution. Finally, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location to preserve design context and consequences.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
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 — 1
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 — 177
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 — 9
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 50
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. 15 of 18 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 0.6 — 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 — 18 dimensions across the health lenses
D3D4D8D9D13D15D17D19D21D28D29AX10M1M2M3M4P1P3
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, 178 of 187 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.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — 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. No production methods reached the complexity pass. Either the solution did not load in this analyzer, or this repository genuinely declares no method bodies; this run cannot tell the two apart, so nothing is asserted about the repository in either direction.
D2 Cognitive Complexity — 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. No production methods reached the complexity pass. Either the solution did not load in this analyzer, or this repository genuinely declares no method bodies; this run cannot tell the two apart, so nothing is asserted about the repository in either direction.
D12 Dependency 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. No dependency manifest this pass reads for hygiene (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)) was found in this repository, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D14 License Compliance — 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. Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (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)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
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 (2 contributor(s) across 565 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 100% of the history; the other 1 hold 0% 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.
D20 ADR Quality — 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 ADR expectation is gated on whether a repository ships a deployable product. Our repo-kind classifier reads .NET project files and the host and package markers of the other ecosystems it knows (a Go `package main`, a Cargo binary, a package.json `bin` or `start` script, Python console scripts or a Django/WSGI entry point, a Spring Boot / WAR / Gradle application build, a Rack or Rails app, a Composer project, an OTP release or escript, a Dockerfile, a Procfile, and the corresponding published-package manifests, including an OTP `*.app.src`), and found none here, so we could not tell what kind of repository this is and did not assess its ADR log. This is a gap in our analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — 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. No production source file with tracked git history was found to analyse, so knowledge freshness is not scored for this run. This is not a clean bill: no file's freshness was measured, and the empty candidate census has repeatedly been our own file-selection rule rather than the repository's shape.
D35 Change 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. Change coupling is mined from the co-change history of production source files, but this repository's production source is .java, which this pass does not recognise as source — only 0 file(s) could be paired, so no coupling could be found no matter how tangled the history is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (go.mod, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX4 Dependency direction — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the direction each project reference points — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX8 Test isolation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
ED5 Idempotency — 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 finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
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.
P5 DR & Backup — 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. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found. Whether there is anything here to recover could NOT be determined: persistence is detected from deployment/container manifests and from dependency manifests, and neither was readable by this pass, so a data store this code opens directly — a file, an embedded database — would not be visible to it. The blindness is this analyzer's, not a finding that the repository holds no data. You can widen what we reach: keep the deployment/container manifest or a dependency manifest in this repository — or a link to the ops repo that holds the DR evidence — so the persistence probe has something to read.
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.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
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.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
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").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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.
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").
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.
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.
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
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.
112 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. 117 of the 117 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
+ 79 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, cust_edit_Controller.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with catering_edit_Controller.java (2), emp_edit_Controller.java, mgr_menu_Controller.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, catering_edit_Controller.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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?
D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.
Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.
No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.
No automated tests
What to do
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: 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.
0 deducted task-comment markers across 9489 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
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.
This single README is a mostly prose setup guide for an event management desktop app that describes the team contributors, required tools (Java IDEs, MySql, Java), and a partial setup process covering javafx SDK download, MySql installation with username/password configuration, sql file handling, IntelliJ project creation, and library placement. It also begins outlining the interface/contact info section but is cut by the scanner before completing it.
Documentation: no usage examples · ×2README.md
What to do
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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: 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).
Resolve the 59 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (13), REDACTED (12), REDACTED (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (59 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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 build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
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.
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 all sits under Project/, so the conventional src/ boundary between the product and its tooling isn't drawn.
No test surface was found — this check walked the tree for authored source in the languages it models (`.cs`, `.vb`, `.fs`, `.java`, `.kt`, `.scala`, `.py`, `.php`, `.rb`, `.ex`, `.exs`, `.go`, `.erl`, `.hrl`, `.swift`, `.dart`, `.rs`, `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.mts`, `.cts`) and found none of it test-shaped. ★ `.js`, `.jsx`, `.mjs` and `.cjs` are NOT in that walk, so a Jest or Mocha suite written in plain JavaScript is invisible to it and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than moving anything. Otherwise there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.
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.
Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
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.
README describes an interface (EMS.gif) and contact info but there is no UI component in the evidence — 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.
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README describes an interface (EMS.gif) and contact info but there is no UI component in the evidence.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — 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's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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.
Not evidenced — 6 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.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 90 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
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.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — no production methods were analyzable
D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no supported dependency manifest was read
D14 License Compliance — Package manifest not parsed for licence data — analyzer language-coverage gap
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — no production methods were analyzable
D20 ADR Quality — Repository kind not determined
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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).
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.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — no production source files with tracked history to analyse
D35 Change Coupling — change coupling unreadable for .java — no production change history could be paired for this repository's own source
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
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 — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
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).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
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 none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — 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
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.
No automated tests — No automated tests — 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 (JUnit (with Kotest or MockK on Kotlin)), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) REDACTED:677— REDACTED:677-692 | REDACTED:330-345 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 24 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 345 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:677` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) REDACTED:253— REDACTED:253-268 | REDACTED:300-315 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:253` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:182— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:182-197 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java:128-143 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 46 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:243— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:243-258 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:291-306 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:243` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:240` calls `Employee`, `setEmployee_id` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:289` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:78— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:78-83 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:258-263 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:85— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:85-90 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:265-270 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:142— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:142-147 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:159-164 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:165` calls `editEmployeeAccountField`, `getAccount_number`, `getEmployee_id` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:150` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:129— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:129-134 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:246-251 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:129` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) REDACTED:225— REDACTED:225-245 | REDACTED:354-374 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:225` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:247` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:376` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) REDACTED:34— REDACTED:34-54 | REDACTED:79-99 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:34` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:32` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:77` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:56— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:56-76 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:236-256 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED:157— REDACTED:157-168 | REDACTED:229-240 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 370 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Customer.java:186— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Customer.java:186-197 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:291-302 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED:38— REDACTED:38-49 | REDACTED:111-122 — 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 × 3) REDACTED:156— REDACTED:156-165 | REDACTED:201-210 | REDACTED:219-228 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 273 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) REDACTED:172— REDACTED:172-181 | REDACTED:244-253 | REDACTED:307-316 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:306` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:171` 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 × 3) REDACTED:32— REDACTED:32-41 | REDACTED:262-271 | REDACTED:309-318 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:31` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:261` 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 (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:117— REDACTED:117-124 | REDACTED:376-383 | REDACTED:304-311 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 246 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:117` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:181— REDACTED:181-188 | REDACTED:36-43 | REDACTED:109-116 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 245 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:33— REDACTED:33-40 | REDACTED:78-85 | REDACTED:248-255 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:32` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:77` 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 (7 lines × 2) REDACTED:348— REDACTED:348-354 | REDACTED:388-394 — 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 × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:214— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:214-220 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:85-91 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:223— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:223-229 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:94-100 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) REDACTED:168— REDACTED:168-173 | REDACTED:86-91 | REDACTED:136-141 | REDACTED:771-776 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:768` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:167` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) REDACTED:536— REDACTED:536-541 | REDACTED:570-575 | REDACTED:606-611 | REDACTED:471-476 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:536` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) REDACTED:570— REDACTED:570-575 | REDACTED:606-611 | REDACTED:321-326 | REDACTED:471-476 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:570` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) REDACTED:772— REDACTED:772-777 | REDACTED:179-184 | REDACTED:491-496 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 254 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) REDACTED:112— REDACTED:112-117 | REDACTED:149-154 | REDACTED:190-195 — 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 (6 lines × 3) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:198— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:198-203 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:216-221 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:234-239 — 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 (25 lines × 2) REDACTED:55— REDACTED:55-79 | REDACTED:123-147 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:55` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) REDACTED:60— REDACTED:60-84 | REDACTED:133-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:60` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) REDACTED:254— REDACTED:254-275 | REDACTED:449-470 — 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 (22 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:190— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:190-211 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:61-82 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) REDACTED:306— REDACTED:306-324 | REDACTED:353-371 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:306` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:242— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:242-260 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:87-105 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) REDACTED:66— REDACTED:66-81 | REDACTED:134-149 | REDACTED:206-221 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 377 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:66` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:124— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:124-139 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:101-116 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:83-98 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 46 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) REDACTED:515— REDACTED:515-532 | REDACTED:629-643 | REDACTED:466-480 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:515` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) REDACTED:681— REDACTED:681-695 | REDACTED:334-348 | REDACTED:395-409 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 24 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 345 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:681` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) REDACTED:205— REDACTED:205-219 | REDACTED:755-769 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:205` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) REDACTED:252— REDACTED:252-266 | REDACTED:315-329 — 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) REDACTED:34— REDACTED:34-47 | REDACTED:102-115 — 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 before the matched lines, `REDACTED:31` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:99` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:47— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:47-60 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:64-77 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:47` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) REDACTED:66— REDACTED:66-80 | REDACTED:134-148 | REDACTED:681-692 | REDACTED:206-220 | REDACTED:334-345 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:66` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:210— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:210-221 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:153-164 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:675-686 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_view_Controller.java:245-256 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:66-77 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:699— REDACTED:699-708 | REDACTED:739-748 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:699` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:177— REDACTED:177-186 | REDACTED:489-498 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:177` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:81— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:81-89 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Employee.java:252-260 — 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 (9 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:167— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:167-176 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:269-277 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:167` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:278` calls `openPopup` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:178` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) REDACTED:415— REDACTED:415-422 | REDACTED:224-232 | REDACTED:353-361 | REDACTED:406-413 | REDACTED:431-438 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 246 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:415` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) REDACTED:415— REDACTED:415-422 | REDACTED:390-397 | REDACTED:224-232 | REDACTED:406-413 | REDACTED:431-438 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 290 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:415` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) REDACTED:32— REDACTED:32-38 | REDACTED:77-83 | REDACTED:379-385 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:378` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:31` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) REDACTED:216— REDACTED:216-222 | REDACTED:177-183 | REDACTED:489-495 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 277 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:216` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) REDACTED:301— REDACTED:301-305 | REDACTED:348-352 | REDACTED:388-392 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:354` calls `addPasswordRecord` and `REDACTED:306` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) REDACTED:279— REDACTED:279-283 | REDACTED:330-334 | REDACTED:390-394 — 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.
Near-duplicate member pair (36 shared lines) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:189— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:189-233 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:60-104 — These two members are variants of one another: 36 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.
Near-duplicate member pair (33 shared lines) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:55— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:55-93 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:235-299 — These two members are variants of one another: 33 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 (83 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (83 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:16— REDACTED:16-58 | REDACTED:61-100 | REDACTED:103-148 | REDACTED:151-218 | REDACTED:222-255 | REDACTED:259-289 | REDACTED:317-351 | REDACTED:353-412 | REDACTED:414-448 | REDACTED:15-81 | REDACTED:84-149 | REDACTED:152-199 | REDACTED:202-248 | REDACTED:251-320 | REDACTED:323-373 | REDACTED:376-409 | REDACTED:412-443 | REDACTED:534-566 | REDACTED:569-602 | REDACTED:605-634 | REDACTED:636-665 | REDACTED:668-696 | REDACTED:698-736 | REDACTED:738-775 | REDACTED:19-64 | REDACTED:66-113 | REDACTED:116-160 | REDACTED:162-245 | REDACTED:247-284 | REDACTED:287-318 | REDACTED:320-349 | REDACTED:389-423 | REDACTED:426-467 | REDACTED:470-503 | REDACTED:505-534 | REDACTED:537-565 | REDACTED:568-602 | REDACTED:604-643 | REDACTED:646-695 | REDACTED:697-750 | REDACTED:752-802 | REDACTED:101-154 | REDACTED:156-221 | REDACTED:223-286 | REDACTED:288-348 | REDACTED:350-409 | REDACTED:412-441 | REDACTED:443-480 | REDACTED:482-516 | REDACTED:67-96 | REDACTED:15-61 | REDACTED:64-136 | REDACTED:138-164 | REDACTED:166-210 | REDACTED:213-243 | REDACTED:246-291 | REDACTED:293-341 | REDACTED:14-72 | REDACTED:74-130 | REDACTED:132-191 | REDACTED:194-302 | REDACTED:305-349 | REDACTED:352-413 | REDACTED:416-446 | REDACTED:503-541 | REDACTED:16-60 | REDACTED:62-105 | REDACTED:107-165 | REDACTED:167-198 | REDACTED:200-230 | REDACTED:232-278 | REDACTED:306-344 | REDACTED:346-403 | REDACTED:405-439 | REDACTED:16-88 | REDACTED:90-161 | REDACTED:163-211 | REDACTED:213-290 | REDACTED:292-324 | REDACTED:326-356 | REDACTED:390-428 | REDACTED:430-464 | REDACTED:466-527 — These 83 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 83 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 83 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (40 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (40 members, 50+ identical tokens) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:41— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:41-67 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:69-96 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:98-125 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:220-248 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:250-277 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:181-207 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:209-239 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:241-268 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:86-113 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:115-141 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:143-179 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:181-208 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java:127-153 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:123-149 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:178-204 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:180-207 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:209-236 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:100-126 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:128-155 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:674-703 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:705-733 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:198-225 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:227-254 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:159-186 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:77-104 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:136-163 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:165-192 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:194-221 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:253-280 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:82-108 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:110-137 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:384-411 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:413-436 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:218-245 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:247-280 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:65-95 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:184-211 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:213-240 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:247-274 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:276-303 — These 40 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 40 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 40 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:138— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:138-152 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:280-294 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:271-285 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:211-225 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java:156-170 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:207-221 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:239-253 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:158-172 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:736-750 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:257-271 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:189-203 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:140-154 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:439-453 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:283-297 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:98-112 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:243-257 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:306-320 — These 17 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 17 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 17 times.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) REDACTED:169— REDACTED:169-199 | REDACTED:218-248 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:169` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:168` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:217` 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 (29 lines × 3) REDACTED:510— REDACTED:510-538 | REDACTED:313-341 | REDACTED:397-425 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 17 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 286 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:510` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) REDACTED:320— REDACTED:320-347 | REDACTED:571-598 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 290 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:320` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 3) REDACTED:387— REDACTED:387-412 | REDACTED:378-403 | REDACTED:502-527 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 313 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:387` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also 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 (23–26 lines × 2) REDACTED:91— REDACTED:91-113 | REDACTED:777-802 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:91` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:776` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:90` 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 (26 lines × 2) REDACTED:167— REDACTED:167-192 | REDACTED:358-383 — 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 (25 lines × 5) REDACTED:262— REDACTED:262-286 | REDACTED:216-240 | REDACTED:419-443 | REDACTED:203-227 | REDACTED:329-353 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 201 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:262` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) REDACTED:413— REDACTED:413-436 | REDACTED:288-311 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:413` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19–24 lines × 2) REDACTED:508— REDACTED:508-531 | REDACTED:461-479 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 377 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:508` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. 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 (20–22 lines × 3) REDACTED:711— REDACTED:711-732 | REDACTED:750-771 | REDACTED:493-512 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 377 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:711` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (1–22 lines × 3) REDACTED:224— REDACTED:224-245 | REDACTED:263-284 | REDACTED:725-725 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:224` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (18–21 lines × 3) REDACTED:585— REDACTED:585-602 | REDACTED:447-467 | REDACTED:486-503 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:585` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also 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 × 3) REDACTED:32— REDACTED:32-52 | REDACTED:90-110 | REDACTED:148-168 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:30` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:89` 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 (18–21 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:92— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:92-112 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:78-95 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:92` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:97` calls `parseInt`, `getText`, `openPopup` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:114` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 12) REDACTED:177— REDACTED:177-195 | REDACTED:279-297 | REDACTED:326-344 | REDACTED:199-217 | REDACTED:700-718 | REDACTED:105-124 | REDACTED:90-108 | REDACTED:169-186 | REDACTED:257-275 | REDACTED:368-386 | REDACTED:125-143 | REDACTED:247-265 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:177` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:171` calls `Catering_Service` and `REDACTED:121` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (17–20 lines × 9) REDACTED:84— REDACTED:84-100 | REDACTED:48-64 | REDACTED:144-160 | REDACTED:42-61 | REDACTED:272-291 | REDACTED:53-72 | REDACTED:111-130 | REDACTED:41-60 | REDACTED:86-105 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 290 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:84` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:141` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:45` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (17–20 lines × 3) REDACTED:132— REDACTED:132-148 | REDACTED:69-88 | REDACTED:142-161 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 370 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:132` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:129` calls `Catering_Service`, `display` and `REDACTED:67` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) REDACTED:639— REDACTED:639-658 | REDACTED:508-527 | REDACTED:415-434 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:639` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:302— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:302-321 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:49-68 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 50 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:69` calls `setText`, `toString`, `getCost` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:324` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 18) REDACTED:271— REDACTED:271-289 | REDACTED:433-448 | REDACTED:428-443 | REDACTED:551-566 | REDACTED:619-634 | REDACTED:650-665 | REDACTED:303-318 | REDACTED:334-349 | REDACTED:408-423 | REDACTED:519-534 | REDACTED:426-441 | REDACTED:81-96 | REDACTED:225-243 | REDACTED:428-446 | REDACTED:212-230 | REDACTED:424-439 | REDACTED:338-356 | REDACTED:449-464 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:271` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:425` calls `executeUpdate` and `REDACTED:270` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11–19 lines × 11) REDACTED:202— REDACTED:202-217 | REDACTED:304-319 | REDACTED:680-695 | REDACTED:549-564 | REDACTED:133-151 | REDACTED:153-163 | REDACTED:333-348 | REDACTED:149-164 | REDACTED:182-197 | REDACTED:274-289 | REDACTED:308-323 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:202` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 7) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:221— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:221-238 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:199-215 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:111-127 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:385-401 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:219-235 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:185-201 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:248-264 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 7 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 6) REDACTED:356— REDACTED:356-372 | REDACTED:733-749 | REDACTED:119-135 | REDACTED:197-209 | REDACTED:285-301 | REDACTED:396-412 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:356` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:354` calls `addPasswordRecord` and `REDACTED:117` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:54— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:54-70 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:52-67 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 14) REDACTED:39— REDACTED:39-54 | REDACTED:177-195 | REDACTED:226-244 | REDACTED:94-109 | REDACTED:780-798 | REDACTED:267-282 | REDACTED:391-406 | REDACTED:319-337 | REDACTED:169-187 | REDACTED:520-538 | REDACTED:256-274 | REDACTED:323-341 | REDACTED:189-207 | REDACTED:407-425 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:39` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:56` calls `Catering_Service` and `REDACTED:408` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 13) REDACTED:19— REDACTED:19-33 | REDACTED:64-78 | REDACTED:87-101 | REDACTED:155-169 | REDACTED:69-83 | REDACTED:119-133 | REDACTED:159-173 | REDACTED:77-91 | REDACTED:135-149 | REDACTED:65-79 | REDACTED:235-249 | REDACTED:93-107 | REDACTED:166-180 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:19` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:175` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:103` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 8) REDACTED:337— REDACTED:337-351 | REDACTED:719-736 | REDACTED:758-775 | REDACTED:588-602 | REDACTED:502-516 | REDACTED:524-541 | REDACTED:327-344 | REDACTED:411-428 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:337` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:214— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:214-228 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:679-693 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_view_Controller.java:249-263 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:70-84 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 11) REDACTED:106— REDACTED:106-119 | REDACTED:18-31 | REDACTED:22-35 | REDACTED:607-620 | REDACTED:651-664 | REDACTED:293-306 | REDACTED:446-459 | REDACTED:18-31 | REDACTED:17-30 | REDACTED:19-32 | REDACTED:19-32 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:106` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:120` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:32` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 5) REDACTED:249— REDACTED:249-262 | REDACTED:296-309 | REDACTED:506-519 | REDACTED:309-322 | REDACTED:393-406 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 250 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:249` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) REDACTED:392— REDACTED:392-408 | REDACTED:356-369 | REDACTED:383-399 | REDACTED:507-523 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:392` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) REDACTED:538— REDACTED:538-551 | REDACTED:473-484 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:538` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 20) REDACTED:19— REDACTED:19-31 | REDACTED:64-76 | REDACTED:320-332 | REDACTED:87-99 | REDACTED:155-167 | REDACTED:69-81 | REDACTED:119-131 | REDACTED:571-583 | REDACTED:159-171 | REDACTED:249-261 | REDACTED:296-308 | REDACTED:77-89 | REDACTED:135-147 | REDACTED:506-518 | REDACTED:65-77 | REDACTED:235-247 | REDACTED:309-321 | REDACTED:93-105 | REDACTED:166-178 | REDACTED:393-405 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:19` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:32` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:262` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 17) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:140— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:140-152 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:282-294 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:273-285 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:213-225 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java:158-170 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:209-221 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:241-253 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:160-172 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:738-750 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:259-271 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:191-203 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:142-154 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:441-453 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:285-297 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:100-112 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:245-257 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:308-320 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 17 call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) REDACTED:205— REDACTED:205-217 | REDACTED:755-767 | REDACTED:485-497 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:205` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 26) REDACTED:104— REDACTED:104-115 | REDACTED:175-185 | REDACTED:359-370 | REDACTED:16-27 | REDACTED:277-287 | REDACTED:324-334 | REDACTED:20-31 | REDACTED:197-207 | REDACTED:605-616 | REDACTED:649-660 | REDACTED:698-708 | REDACTED:103-114 | REDACTED:291-302 | REDACTED:444-455 | REDACTED:16-27 | REDACTED:88-98 | REDACTED:167-176 | REDACTED:15-26 | REDACTED:255-265 | REDACTED:366-376 | REDACTED:17-28 | REDACTED:123-133 | REDACTED:352-363 | REDACTED:17-28 | REDACTED:245-255 | REDACTED:472-483 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:104` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:171` calls `Catering_Service` and `REDACTED:121` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 8) REDACTED:136— REDACTED:136-147 | REDACTED:337-348 | REDACTED:719-733 | REDACTED:758-772 | REDACTED:588-599 | REDACTED:502-513 | REDACTED:73-87 | REDACTED:146-160 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:136` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 7) REDACTED:359— REDACTED:359-373 | REDACTED:736-750 | REDACTED:137-154 | REDACTED:122-136 | REDACTED:199-210 | REDACTED:288-302 | REDACTED:399-413 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:359` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:354` calls `addPasswordRecord` and `REDACTED:117` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:147— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:147-157 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:166-177 — before extracting anything, compare `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:147` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 29) REDACTED:17— REDACTED:17-27 | REDACTED:62-72 | REDACTED:260-270 | REDACTED:318-328 | REDACTED:85-95 | REDACTED:153-163 | REDACTED:637-646 | REDACTED:67-77 | REDACTED:117-127 | REDACTED:427-437 | REDACTED:506-515 | REDACTED:569-579 | REDACTED:157-167 | REDACTED:413-422 | REDACTED:214-224 | REDACTED:247-257 | REDACTED:294-304 | REDACTED:75-85 | REDACTED:133-143 | REDACTED:417-427 | REDACTED:504-514 | REDACTED:63-73 | REDACTED:201-211 | REDACTED:233-243 | REDACTED:307-317 | REDACTED:91-101 | REDACTED:164-174 | REDACTED:327-337 | REDACTED:391-401 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:17` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8–11 lines × 9) REDACTED:223— REDACTED:223-232 | REDACTED:377-386 | REDACTED:669-676 | REDACTED:251-260 | REDACTED:538-545 | REDACTED:139-147 | REDACTED:319-328 | REDACTED:169-178 | REDACTED:293-303 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:223` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 9) REDACTED:392— REDACTED:392-409 | REDACTED:356-370 | REDACTED:733-747 | REDACTED:119-133 | REDACTED:197-207 | REDACTED:285-299 | REDACTED:396-410 | REDACTED:383-400 | REDACTED:507-524 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:392` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:354` calls `addPasswordRecord` and `REDACTED:117` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) REDACTED:40— REDACTED:40-50 | REDACTED:108-118 | REDACTED:42-52 | REDACTED:115-125 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 277 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:40` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:38` 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 (10–11 lines × 4) REDACTED:203— REDACTED:203-213 | REDACTED:753-763 | REDACTED:483-493 | REDACTED:68-77 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 437 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:203` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:118— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:118-128 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:235-245 — 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 (9–10 lines × 14) REDACTED:114— REDACTED:114-122 | REDACTED:26-34 | REDACTED:95-103 | REDACTED:163-171 | REDACTED:30-38 | REDACTED:77-85 | REDACTED:127-135 | REDACTED:659-667 | REDACTED:763-771 | REDACTED:301-309 | REDACTED:368-376 | REDACTED:25-34 | REDACTED:27-35 | REDACTED:101-109 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:114` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:310` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:35` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 13) REDACTED:27— REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:72-79 | REDACTED:95-102 | REDACTED:163-170 | REDACTED:77-84 | REDACTED:127-134 | REDACTED:167-174 | REDACTED:237-246 | REDACTED:366-375 | REDACTED:85-92 | REDACTED:143-150 | REDACTED:101-108 | REDACTED:174-181 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:27` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:175` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:103` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) REDACTED:27— REDACTED:27-35 | REDACTED:72-80 | REDACTED:213-221 | REDACTED:167-175 | REDACTED:239-247 | REDACTED:27-35 | REDACTED:174-182 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:27` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:176` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:183` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:259— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:259-267 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:218-226 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:236-244 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:222-230 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:285-293 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 40) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:60— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:60-67 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:89-96 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:118-125 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:241-248 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:270-277 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:200-207 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:232-239 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:261-268 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:106-113 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:134-141 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:165-172 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:201-208 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java:146-153 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:142-149 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:197-204 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:200-207 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:229-236 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:119-126 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:148-155 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:697-703 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:727-733 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:218-225 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:247-254 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:179-186 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:97-104 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:156-163 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:185-192 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:214-221 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:273-280 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:101-108 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:130-137 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:404-411 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:429-436 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:238-245 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:267-274 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:88-95 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:204-211 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:233-240 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:267-274 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:296-303 — there are 40 copies across 18 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 40 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/Main_Menu_Controller.java:60` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:278` calls `openPopup` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:178` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 17) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:232— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:232-240 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:192-199 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:224-231 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_register_Controller.java:138-145 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_signin_Controller.java:134-141 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_signin_Controller.java:111-118 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/event_book_Controller.java:689-696 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:210-217 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:89-96 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_menu_Controller.java:265-272 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:93-100 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_signin_Controller.java:122-129 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_emp_Controller.java:396-403 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_view_events_Controller.java:230-237 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/payment_Controller.java:80-87 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:196-203 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:259-266 — there are 17 copies across 14 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 17 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:229` calls `setName`, `getEmp`, `getName` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_edit_Controller.java:189` 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 (8 lines × 10) REDACTED:114— REDACTED:114-121 | REDACTED:26-33 | REDACTED:213-220 | REDACTED:30-37 | REDACTED:659-666 | REDACTED:763-770 | REDACTED:301-308 | REDACTED:25-33 | REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:27-34 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:114` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:221` calls `getInt` and `REDACTED:122` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 6) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:262— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/catering_edit_Controller.java:262-269 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:221-228 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_Controller.java:239-246 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/mgr_edit_emp_Controller.java:171-178 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/studio_edit_Controller.java:225-232 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/venue_edit_Controller.java:288-295 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 6 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:126— Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:126-133 | Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:192-199 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/emp_edit_Controller.java:189` calls `disableManagerButton` and `Project/EMS/InterfaceMain/src/sample/cust_menu_Controller.java:123` 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 (7 lines × 4) REDACTED:117— REDACTED:117-123 | REDACTED:376-382 | REDACTED:166-172 | REDACTED:304-310 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 266 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:117` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) REDACTED:40— REDACTED:40-45 | REDACTED:85-90 | REDACTED:135-140 | REDACTED:669-674 | REDACTED:770-775 | REDACTED:180-185 | REDACTED:251-256 | REDACTED:314-319 | REDACTED:35-40 | REDACTED:108-113 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 24 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 345 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:141` calls `getString` and `REDACTED:47` 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 (5 lines × 2) REDACTED:199— REDACTED:199-203 | REDACTED:234-238 — 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.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md— The body states 'You can run queries...' but provides no runnable example of how to execute a query or open the MySql console, leaving usage unshown. Add an example showing how to paste a single query into the MySql console and confirm it runs.
Documentation: no architecture or design documentation README.md— The document outline lists Interface: and Contact Info: but neither is present in the visible text. Add a short architecture overview or contact info section as per the outline.
No tests found — No test suite could be collected — no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (JUnit (with Kotest or MockK on Kotlin)) 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.
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 all sits under Project/, so the conventional src/ boundary between the product and its tooling isn't drawn.
No tests/ separation — No test surface was found — this check walked the tree for authored source in the languages it models (`.cs`, `.vb`, `.fs`, `.java`, `.kt`, `.scala`, `.py`, `.php`, `.rb`, `.ex`, `.exs`, `.go`, `.erl`, `.hrl`, `.swift`, `.dart`, `.rs`, `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.mts`, `.cts`) and found none of it test-shaped. ★ `.js`, `.jsx`, `.mjs` and `.cjs` are NOT in that walk, so a Jest or Mocha suite written in plain JavaScript is invisible to it and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than moving anything. Otherwise there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.
README/code drift — README describes an interface (EMS.gif) and contact info but there is no UI component in the evidence — 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.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — 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's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
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.
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).
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.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
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 01a0c090-03ce-7d8a-9513-7c7771a3edc0 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 1 · Warnings: 177 · Recommendations: 9 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 20-09-2026 @ 20:44 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.