{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D3","name":"God Classes","shortDescription":{"text":"God Classes"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D3"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D8","name":"Code Coverage","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Coverage"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D8"},{"id":"D9","name":"Test Distribution","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Distribution"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D9"},{"id":"D12","name":"Dependency Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D12"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D16","name":"Bus Factor","shortDescription":{"text":"Bus Factor"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D16"},{"id":"D17","name":"Explicit Debt","shortDescription":{"text":"Explicit Debt"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D17"},{"id":"D19","name":"Documentation Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D19"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"]}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AX9","name":"CQS / query purity","shortDescription":{"text":"CQS / query purity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX9"},{"id":"DM4","name":"Rich vs anemic domain model","shortDescription":{"text":"Rich vs anemic domain model"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM4"},{"id":"DM5","name":"Encapsulated state","shortDescription":{"text":"Encapsulated state"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM5"},{"id":"DM6","name":"Domain \u2194 infrastructure boundary","shortDescription":{"text":"Domain \u2194 infrastructure boundary"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM6"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32): RegisterInfoView.body has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4d6977a43e79fbfec8ce9805105f02ee7be0adac43d3205032e1e639386fbc4f"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17): ClubApplyView.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a59c502964aa3c08b68e47c60744d29e725a6e7c1fdfd0d03156478e0b185109"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"RegisterInfoView.body (cognitive 39): RegisterInfoView.body has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (28 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"de116f578bef265e99dd8d1e70d496178bef4b7b40215e035f2b7327f608df71"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37): NightStudyView.body has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (36 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language\u0027s equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"72817eea57042b68d60dcd7ed79199a9a45deb5e196da238ffd19158eb23d284"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"OutView.body (cognitive 26): OutView.body has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (26 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":22}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e402dc4060f05cbd6be1051a6481ee50d9a282e70da3123884be6019d1065c7f"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ClubView.body (cognitive 24): ClubView.body has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (24 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5b99c8067e9077532611d0a234be5cc5b6107ccf16f1ab651eddd91e024fb96c"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ClubApplyView.body (cognitive 24): ClubApplyView.body has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 7, ternaries 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6c35389753291e36a2ec6769338a10106bb7091994f9c0fcf0da5d5eb2ba4fa3"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MyClubView.body (cognitive 23): MyClubView.body has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), ternaries 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language\u0027s equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/MyClubView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a2741dd9c1763ff3f93d951771431fa09e5c55150a50a371d5b29f5d56b1d15c"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"WakeupSongView.body (cognitive 21): WakeupSongView.body has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (21 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fdb0dbc6c0fca448ea37bfbd4d203e41834f63b84f93cd91684746cead09a3df"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"AffiliationCell.body (cognitive 19): AffiliationCell.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language\u0027s equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7db971bbbb2ac243e4e0ca379812ee54728afe96cd5ffd51bd1b8f3c43dcd324"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"RemoteInterceptor.retry (cognitive 17): RemoteInterceptor.retry has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/RemoteInterceptor.swift"},"region":{"startLine":36}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"88b17bde85fee3119ef78112d375d096a6ff5da082e26072753164d718b46d23"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"HomeView.body (cognitive 17): HomeView.body has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), ternaries 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f4d0cf1b92ef2c1701b5893bc39ac12e273b424d01d5bd0d0c0ac267c7b466fd"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"OutApplyView.body (cognitive 16): OutApplyView.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), ternaries 5, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8e8eb6ef1224780ab1b38f1af5b191f54043558f95d07474db5e3846a730f71e"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: RegisterInfoView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 150 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 50 over it, 1.50\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7ab99ac328e5c66ad13166c8eab79e3bdedc5f61887e0d8d9089de7802133e92"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: ClubApplyView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"973560f5f117bd5758a7079a1723341e03ad5f71f580f00cde8acdc15ebed33f"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: NightProjectApplyView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0615fb1373ef6a6ee6201b12339eef3dc9469a96917aaf8f2d981270cf7ec5eb"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: OutApplyView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 120 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.20\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":26}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"824e7a1938194455ef13bcfbaed2b0615e8e01f7a03d43b0a7276c3d592d323e"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: HomeView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c31613e44db7f9517c93eb74caf55321db98895c5770b1e392f18b3d19ab3d39"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: WakeupSongApplyView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5967eb10516cdb6a26419573d8ce76f26a96274c4cd4019b17573527402115e0"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: NightStudyApplyView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":21}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c7f3de043b384e64f57457696bce3bbbf3a8be396c1247c1d4d94bf6a7811db6"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: WakeupSongView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 111 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.11\u00D7 the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8c039fdd97425e32413e86499f64cb062ea5d3f16eab4a37068b6f3308717266"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20-103 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:20-91 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:19-86 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/SugestCell.swift:16-88 \u2014 These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9a3c8bbdca6116430ef2328079a0b4e2ad95ccf89720e43a2a53c9c0c1d44fcf"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27-101 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:27-116 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift:26-104 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift:26-104 \u2014 These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":27}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"634cde79cdb8f5c100e3a727a2533a4b75734da79f34afe90644f7230a5cda3a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:22-92 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:21-196 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:21-163 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:26-176 \u2014 These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":22}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c45278d8d5428ebc3e5b1921822b1266c3c70bccb480c62ecb0d69a07df9655b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (73\u201380 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:65-137 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:57-136 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:65\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":65}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1fa8d3ae0ce2c78f67e005ef195c49546d23ab6cce6d66784ff96b9f7cefe377"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (30\u201331 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift:25-54 | Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/OutStatusContainer.swift:25-55 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"877d85af0bf752521be6bc7edd86572013200bdd2d286fbcc8b868cd0eeffcab"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (29 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66-94 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:69-97 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:66\u0060 calls \u0060label\u0060, \u0060foreground\u0060, \u0060Text\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:65\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":66}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b89b74e5e4555ea9de1e1d8e4c8bed206032cbe2198dd698ab730d241f5eac81"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (28 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20-47 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:20-47 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":20}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e77d38ccec449167e48b9077c0173cf2816afd510ef95a9213c78a3a61e3900f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (26 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:46-71 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyView.swift:46-71 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:46\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":46}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2b59f3b5afe7aaaba528675a0a9017fd515ed8e9f1ecc3ad297370c217aaba1a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17\u201325 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingStudentInfoHeader.swift:12-28 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/ApproveStudentInfoHeader.swift:12-36 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingStudentInfoHeader.swift"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"838bab29a5123cf9e8a7ea35dcd6ae968e0fa0d9a3707db75569157df33150b0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (24 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:25-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:51-74 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:25\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":25}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"62e04d16ee23083fa1b468104d0259db8f5650bf88dd2ec55af555d7bb9dd52a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (22 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:27-48 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":27}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"541ed1e769686d8d90879b9377112a4d383e7d61bffb44279e4d91a31dcb48a0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (19 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift:29-47 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/ApprovedNightStudyStudentCell.swift:22-40 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift:29\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":29}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cf441d482d15e61adb3ee32e456e36cbfa8feb5b2ea68f7e4426b1780ea30ff5"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 4): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:32-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:32-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift:31-47 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift:31-47 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:32\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1b964277fbbda0c90b372f4b54965d6ce4429c957af6e2cbf79d5738e4c94acb"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:42-58 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:67-83 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:42\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a3c949c446c14926e300e441d8e1f4ef29f3e8bc1e0cac99f73e1bfd77d190d3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:84-100 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:72-88 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:84\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":84}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e84153159dc355388a39f6480a326bcad9ebabdc7d07af0d2fab09965b41873"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:42-57 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:61-76 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:42\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"50d6e9503cba57c8f24bad15b6d63dd582223ba4dc09e4b3e509cb438cada8e3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:36-51 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:72-87 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:36\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":36}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fadb1eeeb45ea244f16105e5fdad03b3860158d214800222fe2c215c0a6887a9"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:50-65 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:50-65 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:50\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:66\u0060 calls \u0060label\u0060, \u0060foreground\u0060, \u0060Text\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":50}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ca4ac1826a3cea301f3815b2b69788dc1dac2e21151cb35ff900a270875ab73a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:112-126 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/CreateDivision/CreateDivisionView.swift:42-56 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:112\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":112}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9a2ff1296fd015cacb79cab91cd8b9d0f210b3828c0b72e7c6c1e54b12a0c9ff"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:18-32 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyView.swift:18-32 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:18\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":18}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7b88737883d41f948c903018d5270f7bafca6bb0e5f5c52a7f36dbdff3916a24"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201314 lines \u00D7 5): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:50-63 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:102-112 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:133-143 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:95-108 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:129-142 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:50\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":50}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"41c96d87a9c9f0aba3a489b6b16204fa251f2e4f5a7f320db1a2b53774e310ae"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift:32-45 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/NightStudy/NightStudyResponse.swift:35-48 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift:32\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"da59fadccc18d4c05e904d4754395bc9ef66ac693496eaa06075cab5572b58fb"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:32-45 | Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift:25-38 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:32\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift:39\u0060 calls \u0060padding\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:46\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":32}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"450fe3abec06aae4b50dc3fcb1e34ecab4efe0a50852326ee917d17178a2b069"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:60-72 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:54-66 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:60\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":60}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1d2462ca247e450d948ca76c7a77ad0af72788f93d8eb965b5c0241345a4922b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 3): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:91-102 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:79-90 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/SugestCell.swift:76-87 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:91\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":91}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"62dab1f5b45506ba60ee04c3c38c2b5670f7a95e96843adc4381ab16e6de649a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 4): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:93-103 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:81-91 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:76-86 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/SugestCell.swift:78-88 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:93\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":93}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2d7945d3eade0e072adc185f6f7ac1ef5bc91944d9bc30aa2c762938d0ec00d0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 3): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:91-101 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift:94-104 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift:94-104 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:91\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":91}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8ae67bef525dbde3b8fe98152c9502016ba3579b87d061ad864d194bac77207f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 8): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:55-64 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:104-113 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:135-144 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:100-109 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:134-143 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:52-61 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:84-93 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:115-124 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:55\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":55}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7c4109c674d35aa2722f7e27427f430a233da3ce1ede1416fd8a0b333ec9b92a"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 4): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:40-49 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:65-74 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:40-49 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:59-68 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:40\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind \u0060spacing\u0060 to \u006014\u0060 in one and \u00607\u0060 in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH \u2014 their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not \u2014 and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":40}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2e6e875ff32cda2abdd278ac00b0af88ecfb144d51ccd02595ca6e2ba149a6d3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift:23-32 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutSleeping/OutSleepingResponse.swift:23-32 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutSleeping/OutSleepingResponse.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file\u0027s lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it \u2014 treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any \u0060return\u0060 inside it is the body\u0027s own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"abbecac73af1fd569e9554746997795a33c465fce659a62b7930f468cdbea42d"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:29-38 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:53-62 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:29\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":29}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5dc1f3d0b789c935f7ab6b8049a4c4008bfeccf1c23a1c34cf0228f58d66fd09"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:42-51 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:54-63 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:42\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ce5bea4b90e0e69eea0dc468f0637b89ee490d765a151d297a763eaf0e6223c8"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift:28-36 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyViewModel.swift:30-38 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift:28\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":28}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"32301f1d5f34a72223879f8755792a4321c248df9dd50badac62aba511c59e21"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift:33-40 | Projects/Feature/Source/All/Setting/SettingView.swift:23-30 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift:33\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind \u0060spacing\u0060 to \u006024\u0060 in one and \u006012\u0060 in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH \u2014 their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not \u2014 and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":33}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a6d7206ce5a3711672c52da9c03da5f4d5747d2c431a734bbeba94b33665e739"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:49-56 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:41-48 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:49\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:40\u0060 calls \u0060VStack\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:47\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":49}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e414feb552ec56c2f025961307ce4048e9ea9c28970cabb6e2d5b793f002f02e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 3): Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:29-35 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:29-35 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:28-34 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:29\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:39\u0060 calls \u0060VStack\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:38\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":29}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"32bb43aae65861855b860a845132bc5f7726984efa1ce6a0b04fcfd4c23783c4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift:17-23 | Projects/App/iOS/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift:32-38 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/iOS/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file\u0027s lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it \u2014 treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift"},"region":{"startLine":17}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d71f5ff14e974f128dd5fae23cef0cb8a3472e6a2116245ef7498d0550a522e4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift:15-19 | Projects/App/iOS/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift:13-17 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift"},"region":{"startLine":15}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"03a309dba0a07930615a78a9c8b1c2c6df2d5b5623d68e2284de1017bccceaff"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 4): Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/ClubTeacher.swift:15-19 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/PostLoginRequest.swift:14-18 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/OutSleeping/PostOutSleepingRequest.swift:14-18 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/NightStudy/NightStudyBanResponse.swift:8-12 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/ClubTeacher.swift"},"region":{"startLine":15}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e1e65cb4a501b2ea60b1311af15de17f789515831a79428769a260a46e4c7a97"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Domain/Source/Model/MealModel.swift:22-28 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Meal/MealResponse.swift:17-23 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Model/MealModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":22}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e18b2313d799c49ff854a2f1c14617449cc48206954e30435791b4c240ec58f3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/DeepLinkLoginRequest.swift:9-19 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Club/ClubRegisterTimeResponse.swift:16-21 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/DeepLinkLoginRequest.swift"},"region":{"startLine":9}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1038838df9c3aaaa569a4ecfd694fc4974b22b05c4ddce4f74c5fa4ef085c80b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 3): Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Meal/FetchMealRequest.swift:14-18 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Schedule/FetchScheduleByDateRequest.swift:13-17 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/WakeupSong/FetchAllowedWakeupSongRequest.swift:13-17 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Meal/FetchMealRequest.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a6c6a3fe8620b63557515dc3fd5ceec9b0994a97ce4d2cbbf00c842ee3a020a3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 3): Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllViewModel.swift:43-50 | Projects/Feature/Source/All/Setting/SettingViewModel.swift:39-46 | Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift:200-207 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":43}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d70bd453260fb50d66cf527b3314eda2836220324375b242cc91c0dd4ff759d6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift:124-129 | Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/NoticeViewModel.swift:112-117 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":124}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8c3dd3b0bae8cd509ffd3519a216b1680acad92811fba425e15d618f53a944c0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Division/AddMember/AddMemberViewModel.swift:59-66 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingViewModel.swift:56-64 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/AddMember/AddMemberViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":59}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2c66a7eac3def658d7bceac16c886239625254d11fa81c9a0bfa574cdc9ac602"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift:210-214 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingMemberView.swift:80-84 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":210}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5b0848f1c8c5f9912a7d0dfa4c26a68de40a70aeffee13ae4619cc2911c18118"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift:53-65 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingViewModel.swift:42-54 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":53}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2df8b22daac39b676f0b529c53510d50cd04402ad6483f8fc6178e84e6c2986d"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 3): Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Meal/MealService.swift:37-44 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Notice/NoticeService.swift:37-44 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Point/PointService.swift:37-44 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Meal/MealService.swift"},"region":{"startLine":37}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3e0e5ac8e60489bfefdda19dad730783a8d947d6b403539355079f6eb78088ab"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift:24-30 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutSleeping/OutSleepingService.swift:24-30 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ab8eeba85659a6723dd6ca0eb0a9761b324b68454a63af08a59ed1d205cfa3aa"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift:40-49 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutSleeping/OutSleepingService.swift:40-49 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift"},"region":{"startLine":40}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"933407627bbaed26cde48017cfd2d0c40908288611969f6db9962fbebf4b6bfc"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift:44-51 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingViewModel.swift:33-40 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":44}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"95fdbbcd784c21d05c78025073e43b54bbbc736f7bdfa9f39f1a19bf333c884f"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 5): AppDelegate\u0027s methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/App/iOS/Source/AppDelegate.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c6e095ebe3b770d503fb775586987c4e28a333543de3bc87e9ffb93525ffadd1"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: Date (LCOM4 4): Date\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/MealType.swift"},"region":{"startLine":38}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7808785cf369457bcdbc4a490a83e0d8bee3bee4df8aa0c1076a6c7421e2d881"}},{"ruleId":"D8","level":"error","message":{"text":"No automated tests: No automated tests \u2014 no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3132564c6310e5d01a231f252a02d5d2f5a542c0a8fa29a14c89693f1e3df871"}},{"ruleId":"D9","level":"note","message":{"text":"No tests found: No test suite could be collected \u2014 no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c9bf64cbb5a4ae13d6bcd01fa3bc8d2879d860c73bc67f176ee3c2cecb8adce3"}},{"ruleId":"D12","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Floating branch dependency: flowkit: Dependency \u0060flowkit\u0060 is declared in Tuist/Package.swift against branch \u0060main\u0060 \u2014 the declaration pins no immutable point, so \u0060swift package update\u0060 moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (\u0060from:\u0060, \u0060.upToNextMajor(from:)\u0060, \u0060exact:\u0060) or to a \u0060revision:\u0060 commit SHA."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"94883b546dec2e56ae6b6a053de024b08b871a036671f6f9f5eec2550bb8d7c8"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift: Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is HomeViewModel.fetchMealData at line 85), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: today meal Text\u201D; \u201Cfix: homeViewModel function\u201D; \u201Cfix: MealContainer data\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2025-09-20..2025-12-19, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272025-09-20 13:18:39 \u002B09:00\u0027 --until=\u00272025-12-19 13:18:39 \u002B09:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":85}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e95f7b24bdf19e60bbb2a542cfde66ac7255af7c11b9b793690f297097193975"}},{"ruleId":"D16","level":"note","message":{"text":"Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1: If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Detail/ClubDetailView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2389a2e4b4c228dd097e5be3b8e80bc85a1725f8c4dd36f3bb33d540c77f9512"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: \uB9C8\uAC10 \uD6C4 \uAD6C\uD604 \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":89}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5a559de33eb2fab75c5f0dc1bbf80a6ac3d221350b278d241d06bc082bdf31e8"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add Max length \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Division/CreateDivision/CreateDivisionView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":38}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"322ac1e2e5803b4e9f88934086f7f88908ad4e1f2a4df227fbbd4fd613eabb74"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: ScrollView\uC5D0 \uC788\uB358 \uAC70 \uADF8\uB300\uB85C \uAC16\uACE0 \uC654\uC2B5\uB2C8\uB2E4. \uB098\uC911\uC5D0 Extension\uC73C\uB85C \uBD84\uB9AC\uD560 \uAC83. \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":114}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fd8b8fbf63ddef1ba2160106bd1d04b838af80ee22a0527d3327995e9ae7e075"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Fix DDS \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/NoticeView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":47}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d844a4d6ca809c0b5cfaab417bcbebfc3ab91bc927760cce2885a674797aa9d7"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Refactor \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/Component/NoticeFile.swift"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3c10cf9cf3a2c41358d51e1f0149e16242c3fd08e89b20e895b467ffb58bb00e"}},{"ruleId":"D19","level":"note","message":{"text":"Documentation: no installation or build instructions: The installation instructions are sparse: mise setup and the make generate command are described, but there is no build/run/usage example showing how to execute the app after provisioning profiles are set. Add a short \u0027How to Run It\u0027 section that walks through running DodamDodam with the debug provisioning profile."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"README.md"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1fa6bfcd5c6ae231d1b8ee99bced50b832d1f61cde9da6cbb533467b879a57db"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Orphaned files with no living knowledge: 39 of 85 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left \u2014 their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 85 of the 372 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each \u2014 most significant first: Projects/Feature/Source/ChildrenManage/ChildrenManageView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/RegisterViewModel.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/All/Setting/EditMemberInfo/EditMemberInfoView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift (and 31 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ce861fd78f6935114d3a342cb90ad25870f984e1042954fcbbe27c0e23be3658"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"error","message":{"text":"Boundary-crossing change coupling: MealView.swift \u2194 DataUtil.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift\u0060 (context Feature) and \u0060Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060 (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) \u2014 the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can\u0027t see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Meal/MealView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060); \u00605af7a252\u0060 delete: Delete loging code (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Meal/MealView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060); \u00605ab92487\u0060 feat: Create out progress logic (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Meal/MealView.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"87316f8eceb7400265b8c2a110eca556fbc204a922ea8b6c4cec046eee3027ee"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"error","message":{"text":"Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutSleepingCell.swift \u2194 DataUtil.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060 (context Feature) and \u0060Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060 (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) \u2014 the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can\u0027t see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060); \u006029fd6c18\u0060 feat: Create date logic to out screen (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0531864911603dfed45d3b3e4af347b5eac872718587803759ba9110e681bf5a"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"error","message":{"text":"Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift \u2194 DataUtil.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 (context Feature) and \u0060Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060 (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) \u2014 the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can\u0027t see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060); \u006029fd6c18\u0060 feat: Create date logic to out screen (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6b34f10e608565de2d160c86b5db3349da71ac4c5987ea614647835a9474ad78"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"error","message":{"text":"Boundary-crossing change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift \u2194 DataUtil.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 (context Feature) and \u0060Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060 (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) \u2014 the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can\u0027t see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060); \u00605af7a252\u0060 delete: Delete loging code (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0e46cb830d3d6f74f8e4d6f2e2e722e3f276b8ef21b85b83151a8fa0a8e80aca"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: NightStudyStatusContainer.swift \u2194 OutStatusContainer.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/OutStatusContainer.swift\u0060 change together 86% of the time (12 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u0060131de8ab\u0060 feat: Apply StatusContainer Changes; \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Home/Component/OutStatusContainer.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2baf7da0b3a36325036fbec5b6af9da97bb7fa11786346b0040b22bd62dc76d5"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepository.swift \u2192 NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyView.swift: \u0060Projects/Domain/Source/Repository/NightStudy/NightStudyRepository.swift\u0060 changes together with 4 other files \u2014 \u0060Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/NightStudy/NightStudyRemote.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/NightStudy/NightStudyService.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Domain/Source/Repository/NightStudy/NightStudyRepository.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"37b031fe1f00c2fd03218519a0c7955ef24a2e8c6c69bff7d949b66f15b50e23"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift \u2194 WakeupSongCell.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift\u0060 change together 82% of the time (9 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u006032e27e62\u0060 feat: Apply DodamShape; \u006057a7db44\u0060 feat: Apply DDS Changes; \u00605175ba32\u0060 fix: Fix meal text (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"10491645bbb5bcc3197c549bcfeb59533550c951c831a556d3d0640e81f54832"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift \u2194 OutSleepingCell.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060 change together 80% of the time (8 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060); \u006029fd6c18\u0060 feat: Create date logic to out screen (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1edec840736a0e4f271aa314b9045939c8f15ad84b870aa68c8c32e37e94019b"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift \u2192 NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift, NightStudyView.swift, NightStudyViewModel.swift: \u0060Projects/Data/Repository/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift\u0060 changes together with 5 other files \u2014 \u0060Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/NightStudy/NightStudyRemote.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/NightStudy/NightStudyService.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyViewModel.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 5 separate couplings, not 5 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 5."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Data/Repository/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6c5598927e24ff5155726563dc85a599abc326e5e6da63cd51c58ee10baf4369"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift \u2194 OutGoingCell.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift\u0060 change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 11 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u0060131de8ab\u0060 feat: Apply StatusContainer Changes; \u006091f9f77f\u0060 feat: Apply NightStudyApplyCell, OutGoingCell Changes \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"14bee38f8cb1691f2c45542e57fda5053a287dfec5e04b63f87123178dd74410"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: Project.swift \u2194 Project.swift: \u0060Projects/App/Project.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Data/Project.swift\u0060 change together 70% of the time (7 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00602db712ae\u0060 fix: To save pushToken; \u0060c6921479\u0060 feat: Send pushToken to login; \u00602dcc2079\u0060 feat: Create Periphery script \u0026 module \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/App/Project.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6105c6a4cded7a68f5661274f210ba1a6e29fbda9dfb052012045e1739fbfa30"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: NightStudyDataSource.swift \u2194 NightStudyService.swift: \u0060Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/NightStudy/NightStudyService.swift\u0060 change together 69% of the time (9 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609b22d1ab\u0060 feat: add NightStudy ban; \u0060fd76807b\u0060 feat: add NightStudy Manager; \u0060d61e5cba\u0060 remove: room logic \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"124ae386c9415c69974fd4448a6b17054d5587d20e92e148553e776289c47dc1"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift \u2194 OutSleepingCell.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060 change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00609227ee0d\u0060 refactor: Refactor code; \u00601d857058\u0060 refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060); \u00607eecd13f\u0060 feat: Craete out, night study reject view (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9418a03799ebc0fb2036753c710d542648b350adf4d18110e92779fb3bc55843"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: NightStudyView.swift \u2192 NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift\u0060 changes together with 3 other files \u2014 \u0060Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/NightStudy/NightStudyRemote.swift\u0060, \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"75112dcc7f555f4911ff8deb1f307c3610ba01c3f8493a708d071983d7813774"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: HomeViewModel.swift \u2194 MealViewModel.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealViewModel.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (8 of the 16 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00603710eebc\u0060 feat: Create OnAppearProtocol; \u0060a1c41fad\u0060 Create MealModel; \u00603c78a7a6\u0060 refactor: getDate -\u003E Date subscript \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"21c9c15958667ff09eec37203f501e7d605b9bd1460e20468f2c9196f2b99446"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift \u2194 WakeupSongViewModel.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongViewModel.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00607937e011\u0060 feat: Apply DodamDialog (alert func); \u0060d97f2424\u0060 feat: Add refreshable to all Views (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongViewModel.swift\u0060); \u006024c007ea\u0060 refactor: Refactor refresh logic (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongViewModel.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"49bcb3c38854d295e9d53e339d9ed405d6fc0ea182e44ded8a9d6e235e155632"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift \u2194 WakeupSongView.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00607937e011\u0060 feat: Apply DodamDialog (alert func); \u006024c007ea\u0060 refactor: Refactor refresh logic (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift\u0060); \u0060bc95912c\u0060 fix: Fix empty data view (at that commit the files were still \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4dfafee7a661cdc630d99f81d0595bb83a3e06ed6c24b71cfd464c5c1234f95c"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift \u2194 NightStudyApplyView.swift: \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift\u0060 and \u0060Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00600f1ba450\u0060 feat: add CheckUsingRoomRepo; \u0060453de998\u0060 fix: Night Project Apply Response; \u0060755b4cb8\u0060 fix: Night Study Apply \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"355e7839ff7fe899ab31977260d8d1b3570ae4c518a19e5f7f907790962cc328"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No architecture diagram/doc: No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named \u0060architecture\u0060 or \u0060design\u0060 in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape \u2014 no \u0060## Architecture\u0060 heading, no \u0022architecture overview\u0022/\u0022high-level design\u0022 phrasing, no \u0022the architecture is \u2026\u0022 introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document \u2014 not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c190e7c159d1850ee706c3ac4486e151e8a4fe169de4bf61436b9f399654f06"}},{"ruleId":"M3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No src/ separation: Production code isn\u0027t grouped under a src/ folder \u2014 it\u0027s spread across several top-level directories, so there\u0027s no one place that says \u0027this is the product\u0027."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fdf7f5b24e313364d10170a5c2542959902fe0d26ed70edef3eaa10ec5bcdb1d"}},{"ruleId":"M3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No tests/ separation: No test surface was found \u2014 this check walked the tree for authored source in the languages it models (\u0060.cs\u0060, \u0060.vb\u0060, \u0060.fs\u0060, \u0060.java\u0060, \u0060.kt\u0060, \u0060.scala\u0060, \u0060.py\u0060, \u0060.php\u0060, \u0060.rb\u0060, \u0060.ex\u0060, \u0060.exs\u0060, \u0060.go\u0060, \u0060.erl\u0060, \u0060.hrl\u0060, \u0060.swift\u0060, \u0060.dart\u0060, \u0060.rs\u0060, \u0060.ts\u0060, \u0060.tsx\u0060, \u0060.mts\u0060, \u0060.cts\u0060) and found none of it test-shaped. \u2605 \u0060.js\u0060, \u0060.jsx\u0060, \u0060.mjs\u0060 and \u0060.cjs\u0060 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\u0027t been reached yet."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"999e0c784909c76b6346a705ee63961fe363ed1cd6a94e3f80e2ebe7820ccd5d"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: README claims iOS app with App Store link but the repository contains no iOS project \u2014 searched for: \u0060iOS app\u0060, \u0060App Store link\u0060. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README\u0027s own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read \u2014 a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"343bbbd51ceb8de7a9ff88d79f7c797abf9b5921f8727b67b4d0f4f8a22c5e49"}},{"ruleId":"P1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"No CI pipeline: No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, \u2026) \u2014 changes aren\u0027t gated by an automated build/test."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"44f01af96e50474fba2df84d95ddf4f7e1d34c29c307830b9efc9057daa6b670"}},{"ruleId":"P3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No SAST: No static application security testing detected. For this repository\u0027s stack, add CodeQL\u0027s Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or \u0060semgrep --config=auto\u0060, which runs on any language) \u2014 this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen \u2014 if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54424179c892f03ef2fd003130ac4bd43f39bbf3b1ca0a0143e25acb80ec87"}},{"ruleId":"P6","level":"note","message":{"text":"No changelog: No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file \u2014 what shipped when isn\u0027t easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dda5aa5aed8cbb292c3ef2b733bc138f614293ae6426c85e98bf31ef330d9415"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"OS Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"OS Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"SQL Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"SQL Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Code Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":0,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}}}]}