Public report — c3, published 2 Oct 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_7b475e4898a84535bd210057b5ac0920
Filed 2 October 2026, 03:52 UTC
Public
Medium · 65,422 LoC · 1 projects · rebuild ~0.5 person-years · weakest lens: Code Health (40%)
Findings by grade
30 critical432 serious42 minor34 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
2 October 2026, 03:32 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
484findings with an exact file:lineof 504 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
54/132dimensions across the health lenses65422 LoC · 1 projects — wide & deep
⚠ A critical security finding caps this grade — resolve it before relying on the score below; see the Security lens.
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
The system holds a fragile standing with an overall health score of 47%, placing it at risk. While the underlying architecture is robust, the code quality is too weak to support reliable, cost-effective delivery. This imbalance creates a significant drag on development velocity and increases the likelihood of defects in a medium-sized asset that would cost approximately €67,000 to rebuild.
The primary risk is concentrated in code maintainability. The codebase suffers from high complexity and duplication, which acts as a hidden tax on every change. Modifications in these weaker areas plausibly cost 3–8% more than in clean code, and this expense compounds as the system grows. This lack of clarity slows down feature delivery and increases the effort required for routine maintenance, directly impacting operational costs.
A secondary concern is the system’s readiness for new teams. With a maturity score of 51% and accessibility at 46%, the knowledge required to operate and extend the system is not well-documented or easily accessible. This creates a dependency on specific individuals rather than institutional knowledge, raising the risk of delays if key personnel leave. The system is not fully prepared for safe, independent operation by a new team.
Despite these risks, the architecture is exceptionally strong at 99%, and security is reasonably sound at 69%. The core structure is stable, and there are no confirmed critical security vulnerabilities. This solid foundation means that remediation efforts can focus on code structure without needing to rewrite the entire system, preserving the significant value already embedded in the logic.
The highest-leverage action is to split oversized files into smaller, focused modules and delete dead code. This single move addresses the root cause of the maintainability tax and pays for itself by reducing the annual drag on development. Prioritizing this cleanup will immediately improve delivery speed and reduce long-term costs, making it the most critical first step for leadership to approve.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Raise Code Health 40 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 47 → ~52.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (100+)
198 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-17) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.7× (at 47% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€67,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 40% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Code Health at 40%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Code Health first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.6/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–8% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D6 code quality: averaging 6.6/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
The top fix pays for itself · Medium · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 3–10 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 0.2–1 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~1,926 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 37–736 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 3–8% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 475 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~1,926/year · D1/D2/D6 code quality: averaging 6.6/10 ⇒ a 3–8% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Medium effort ⇒ about 3–10 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 736 months.
At a glance — Code Health · 40% · Weak · gated by R3, R7 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
33
High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection
14
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by splitting the largest files into smaller, focused modules to improve manageability, and immediately remove dead code to reduce maintenance overhead. Next, address code duplication by extracting shared logic into appropriate shared types or factories, and migrate the remaining JavaScript files to TypeScript to strengthen type safety. Finally, simplify the most complex functions by breaking them down to ensure they remain easy to understand and maintain.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 30
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 432
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 42
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 34
Something this survey could not settle
from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no
positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves
nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean
result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither
rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each
one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 51 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 54 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 484 of 504 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the JavaScript/TypeScript suite(s) run through a browser-driven runner the coverage collector does not drive — the repository root (karma) — a gap in the analyzer, not something this repository is missing. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — a Codecov configuration (codecov.yml) and a coverage step in CI (`codecov/codecov-action`) shows coverage is measured in your own CI. Commit the lcov/Cobertura report it produces and the real number is read on the next scan. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces, and the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.ts) and the reliability runner does support this ecosystem — it drives jest, vitest, mocha and egg-bin — but every JavaScript/TypeScript test package this repository declares runs its suite in a real browser, which the re-runner has no way to launch. the root package declares `karma` and its `scripts.test` is `run-s build lint karma`. So flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's browser-driven test support, not a missing .ts runner and not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its gem dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 39 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 4 of the 71 production source files in this repository: 32 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 35 have no attributable history left to measure.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (package.json), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `docs/js/ace/worker-javascript.js` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AC3 Page structure — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 187 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 227.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and none applies: this repository publishes a library and deploys nothing (no container, IaC or deployment manifest), so it holds no runtime state of its own. Any data-access dependency it declares is the store it is a CLIENT for, not one it operates. The DR control belongs to whoever runs that data.
R10 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 265 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 305.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Kotlin and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Kotlin or Scala was found, and this repository's Ruby is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no Java or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
135 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend at 68. A further 27 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis at 25 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 4 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/axis-internal.ts (axis-internal.AxisInternal.generateAxis at 25), src/zoom.ts (zoom.ChartInternal.initZoom at 18), src/scale.ts (scale.ChartInternal.updateScales at 16), src/subchart.ts (subchart.ChartInternal.initBrush at 16). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 60 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 14 (anonymous) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with c3.js (13), c3.esm.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with c3.esm.js (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with c3.js (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 95 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 24 (anonymous) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with c3.js (23), c3.esm.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with c3.esm.js (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with c3.js (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
6 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
FileTooLong: ./c3.esm.js · ×6c3.esm.js
What to do
Resolve the 6 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with c3.esm.js (2), c3.js (2), core.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
479 test methods: 479 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 479 `it`/`test` case(s) across 31 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
1 skipped (1 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 479 tests.
Skipped (documented): should split tick text properlyspec/axis-spec.ts:674
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
0 outdated direct gem(s), 0 pinning defect(s). 2 declaration(s) graded against rubygems.org, 1 of them against a version resolved in a committed Gemfile.lock. 1 declaration(s) carry a requirement that EXCLUDES the current release; that is a deliberate constraint (a supported-version ceiling or a held-back CI pin) and is counted, not charged. Whether any of these gems is DEPRECATED or YANKED is not graded — rubygems.org publishes no deprecation marker, and a yank removes a version rather than flagging it. Whether any is UNMAINTAINED is not graded either: no registry publishes a maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from the manifest there.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 51 shipped gem(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from rubygems.org over the 51 gem(s) a consumer installs — this repository's runtime declarations closed transitively over its committed Gemfile.lock. Development-group and `add_development_dependency` gems are excluded: they are not distributed with this repository. 1 of them publish no licence on rubygems.org; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's gem dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
19 deducted task-comment markers across 13407 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
TodoComment · ×18src/subchart.ts:8
FixmeCommentsrc/polyfill.ts:1608
What to do
Resolve the 18 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with drag.ts (2), axis-internal.ts (2), api.grid.ts (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with polyfill.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is clear and well-structured: it states c3's purpose as a D3-based chart library, links to CircleCI, codecov.io, jsDelivr hits, the project website, an overview of documentation (Getting Started, Examples, Full API Reference), Google Group, Gitter chat, and guidance on using the issue queue versus the Google Group for support. The two architecture/Docs markdown files are not referenced in this summary. However, the README is thin on any single missing element: it does not show installation or usage examples (the npm run serve-static line is a shell command but no code block showing how to install and use c3), so the absence of those is an unshown gap.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The repository's root README is clear and well-structured: it states c3's purpose as a D3-based chart library, links to CircleCI, codecov.io, jsDelivr hits, the project website, an overview of documentation (Getting Started, Examples, Full API Reference), Google Group, Gitter chat, and guidance on using the issue queue versus the Google Group for support. The two architecture/Docs markdown files are not referenced in this summary. However, the README is thin on any single missing element: it does not show installation or usage examples (the npm run serve-static line is a shell command but no code block showing how to install and use c3), so the absence of those is an unshown gap.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
14 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 6 medium, 0 low. 7 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 6 file(s) — `c3.js`, `docs/js/ace/ace.js`, `docs/js/ace/worker-javascript.js`, `docs/js/c3.js`, `htdocs/samples/selection.html` (line 6, line 9, line 12, …), … (+1 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 7 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
Resolve the 18 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (18). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
2 of 39 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/shape.ts. Counted over 39 of the 71 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned files with no living knowledge
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 3 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. (×38) — docs/_sample.haml:11, docs/_samples_header.haml:11, docs/reference.html.haml:365, …
The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). — docs/layouts/layout.haml:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — docs/layouts/layout.haml:2
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".
An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×2) — docs/index.html.haml:9, docs/js/index.js:153
What to do
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
`.c3-tooltip th` sets color: #FFF on background-color: #aaa — 2.3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. (×3) — c3.css:159, extensions/chart-bubble/c3.css:159, docs/css/c3.css:159
`button.success, .button.success` sets color: white on background-color: #43ac6a — 2.9:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — docs/css/foundation.css:1116
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 16 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README claims a dependency on D3.js but the package.json manifest lists no d3 dependency — searched for: `D3.js`. 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's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — 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.
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README claims a dependency on D3.js but the package.json manifest lists no d3 dependency.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1138 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.
Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.
96 typed · 7 plain JS — the untyped files are c3.esm.js, c3.js, extensions/chart-bubble/bubble.js, extensions/exporter/phantom-exporter.js, extensions/js/c3ext.js, htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js (+1 more). tsconfig.json switches off noImplicitAny, strictNullChecks, noImplicitThis, so the typed files are only partly type-checked. 1 production file(s) opt out entirely with @ts-nocheck · 0 @ts-ignore suppression(s); the opted-out files are src/polyfill.ts.
What to do
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.
Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.
c3.esm.js:12425 · c3.js:10050 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 4669 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:12425
c3.esm.js:1956 · c3.js:1625 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:1956
c3.esm.js:2403 · c3.js:1982 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:2403
c3.esm.js:9011 · src/domain.ts:108 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 932 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:9011
c3.esm.js:5310 · c3.js:4137 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:5310
c3.esm.js:1513 · c3.js:1270 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:1513
c3.esm.js:5517 · c3.js:4294 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:5517
c3.esm.js:13268 · src/stanfordelements.ts:64 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 852 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:13268
c3.esm.js:1824 · c3.js:1517 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:1824
c3.esm.js:7400 · src/config.ts:4 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:7400
c3.esm.js:10526 · c3.js:8485 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:10526
c3.esm.js:10138 · c3.js:8179 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:10138
c3.esm.js:5786 · c3.js:4519 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:5786
src/shape.line.ts:78 · src/shape.line.ts:345 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 547 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/shape.line.ts:78
c3.esm.js:13465 · src/tooltip.ts:44 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 243 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:13465
src/polyfill.ts:656 · src/polyfill.ts:789 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/polyfill.ts:656
c3.esm.js:7831 · src/data.convert.ts:123 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 491 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:7831
c3.esm.js:10390 · c3.js:8360 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:10390
c3.esm.js:13610 · c3.js:10965 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:13610
src/polyfill.ts:233 · src/polyfill.ts:350 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/polyfill.ts:233
c3.esm.js:8788 · c3.js:7089 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:8788
c3.esm.js:10260 · c3.js:8275 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:10260
c3.esm.js:6007 · c3.js:4708 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:6007
c3.esm.js:11400 · src/shape.ts:12 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 551 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:11400
c3.esm.js:12709 · src/text.ts:46 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 399 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — c3.esm.js:12709
c3.esm.js:6852 · c3.js:5388 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:6852
c3.esm.js:7017 · c3.js:5533 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:7017
src/polyfill.ts:466 · src/polyfill.ts:560 · src/polyfill.ts:1048 · src/polyfill.ts:1150 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. — src/polyfill.ts:466
c3.esm.js:9230 · c3.js:7425 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:9230
c3.esm.js:11111 · c3.js:8968 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:11111
c3.esm.js:4812 · src/polyfill.ts:2085 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:4812
c3.esm.js:4435 · c3.js:3455 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:4435
c3.esm.js:5670 · c3.js:4423 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:5670
c3.esm.js:6132 · c3.js:4804 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:6132
c3.esm.js:9044 · c3.js:7280 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:9044
c3.esm.js:1221 · c3.js:1047 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:1221
c3.esm.js:410 · c3.js:358 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:410
c3.esm.js:819 · c3.js:737 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:819
c3.esm.js:4692 · c3.js:3665 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — c3.esm.js:4692
c3.esm.js:9854 · c3.js:7958 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — c3.esm.js:9854
What to do
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.
Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.
redraw has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 56; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×3) — c3.esm.js:1949, c3.js:1623, src/core.ts:559
getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — c3.esm.js:9011, c3.js:7270
getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 50; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/domain.ts:108
_parseNumber has cyclomatic complexity 38 and cognitive complexity 43; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×3) — c3.esm.js:4656, c3.js:3640, src/polyfill.ts:1929
updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×3) — c3.esm.js:10324, c3.js:8336, src/legend.ts:169
updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — c3.js:1509, src/core.ts:414
updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 28; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — c3.esm.js:1805
initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×3) — c3.esm.js:1589, c3.js:1337, src/core.ts:198
parseSegment has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 7; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — c3.esm.js:4797, c3.js:3748
What to do
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files3.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.
Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.
17 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: c3.esm.js (13191), c3.js (11256), src/polyfill.ts (2250), spec/data-spec.ts (1425), src/core.ts (1194), spec/axis-spec.ts (1104) (+11 more).
What to do
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.
Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.
No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×5) — c3.esm.js, c3.js, extensions/js/c3ext.js, …
What to do
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.
Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).
Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.
Unreachable from the 67 application, 2 tooling and 33 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `yarn run type` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (67 application, 2 tooling, 33 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×3) — c3.esm.js, extensions/js/c3ext.js, extensions/exporter/phantom-exporter.js
What to do
Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.
Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.
Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)
What to do
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.
Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.
Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — markup this repository SHIPS is scored for third-party script integrity whether or not the repository serves it itself, since a page handed to a consumer runs in that consumer’s origin. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.
`http://d3js.org/d3.v4.min.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. — REDACTED:8
What to do
Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 12 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (22%; ≈24% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 43 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 25 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 72 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect. If it does persist personal data (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the controls belong to wherever that data is stored.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no browser-driven test runner (karma)
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.js, .ts) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this npm build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P2 Observability — This repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby source (2 module(s), 83 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `nyc --reporter=lcovonly <your existing test command>` (nyc is already a devDependency here)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a package.json, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a yarn lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
<html> without a lang docs/layouts/layout.haml:2— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
AC3 · Page structure· Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 · ×36
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:365— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:386— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:405— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:420— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:439— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:458— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:477— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:498— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:525— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:540— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:561— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:574— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:587— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:600— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:613— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:626— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:639— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:654— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:683— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:702— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:727— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:758— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:783— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:807— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h3 to h5 docs/reference.html.haml:838— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
(anonymous)::redraw (cognitive 56) c3.js:1623— (anonymous)::redraw has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (32 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 9, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
(anonymous)::getYDomain (cognitive 51) c3.js:7270— (anonymous)::getYDomain has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), ternaries 15 (18 pts), boolean chains 12 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
(anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber (cognitive 43) c3.js:3640— (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 21, if/else 12 (15 pts), loops 4 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
(anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber (cognitive 43) c3.esm.js:4656— (anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 21, if/else 12 (15 pts), loops 4 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
(anonymous)::getTooltipContent (cognitive 42) c3.js:10918— (anonymous)::getTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), ternaries 4 (14 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::updateLegend (cognitive 35) c3.js:8336— (anonymous)::updateLegend has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 17 (19 pts), boolean chains 10, if/else 6 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
(anonymous)::lineWithRegions (cognitive 32) c3.js:9466— (anonymous)::lineWithRegions has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), ternaries 5 (11 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). 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.
(anonymous)::updateSizes (cognitive 30) c3.js:1509— (anonymous)::updateSizes has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 16, if/else 8, boolean chains 6. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::initWithData (cognitive 27) c3.js:1337— (anonymous)::initWithData has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
(anonymous)::transformForArcLabel (cognitive 27) c3.js:5079— (anonymous)::transformForArcLabel has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (16 pts), if/else 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
(anonymous)::redrawArc (cognitive 25) c3.js:5294— (anonymous)::redrawArc has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 12 (19 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::flow (cognitive 21) c3.js:4151— (anonymous)::flow has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), ternaries 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
(anonymous)::getRatio (cognitive 21) c3.js:7048— (anonymous)::getRatio has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (9 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::updateLegend::updatePositions (cognitive 21) c3.js:8356— (anonymous)::updateLegend::updatePositions has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 8, ternaries 4 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::getYForText (cognitive 21) c3.js:10360— (anonymous)::getYForText has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (3 pts) (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.
(anonymous)::getTranslate (cognitive 20) c3.js:1895— (anonymous)::getTranslate has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (12 pts), if/else 8 (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.
(anonymous)::updateGrid (cognitive 20) c3.js:7762— (anonymous)::updateGrid has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 18, if/else 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::getXDomain (cognitive 19) c3.js:7424— (anonymous)::getXDomain has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (10 pts), if/else 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::getHorizontalAxisHeight (cognitive 19) c3.js:9899— (anonymous)::getHorizontalAxisHeight has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 7, if/else 6, ternaries 4 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
(anonymous)::getTooltipSortFunction (cognitive 18) c3.js:10852— (anonymous)::getTooltipSortFunction has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.
(anonymous)::getYDomainMin (cognitive 17) c3.js:7192— (anonymous)::getYDomainMin has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::getYDomainMax (cognitive 17) c3.js:7231— (anonymous)::getYDomainMax has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::initParams (cognitive 16) c3.js:1224— (anonymous)::initParams has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 13, boolean chains 3. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::transformMain (cognitive 16) c3.js:1983— (anonymous)::transformMain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
TodoComment src/subchart.ts:8— // TODO: dynamically change brushY/brushX according to axis_rotated. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/shape.line.ts:302— // Draw with region // TODO: Fix for horizotal charts — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/selection.ts:81— // TODO: how to select step chart? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/polyfill.ts:1761— // TODO: Optimize this to just append to the existing attribute. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/grid.ts:111— // TODO: x1, x2, y1, y2, opacity need to be set here maybe — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/drag.ts:37— // TODO: binary search when multiple xs — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/drag.ts:75— // TODO: included/unincluded callback here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/core.ts:322— // TODO: currently this must be called after initLegend because of update of sizes, but it should be done in initSubchart. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/chart-internal.ts:5— // TODO: Maybe we should check that the modification by rollup-plugin-modify — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/axis-internal.ts:305— // TODO: each attr should be one function and change its behavior by internal.orient, probably — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/axis-internal.ts:348— // TODO: rotated tick text — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/arc.ts:131— // TODO: extends all function — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/api.tooltip.ts:36— // TODO: get target data by checking the state of focus — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/api.load.ts:43— // TODO: do not unload if target will load (included in url/rows/columns) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/api.grid.ts:18— // TODO: multiple — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/api.grid.ts:38— // TODO: multiple — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/api.color.ts:3— // TODO: fix — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/api.axis.ts:13— // TODO: return some values? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
(anonymous)::redraw (cyclomatic 45) c3.js:1623— (anonymous)::redraw has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::getYDomain (cyclomatic 45) c3.js:7270— (anonymous)::getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber (cyclomatic 38) c3.js:3640— (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
(anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber (cyclomatic 38) c3.esm.js:4656— (anonymous)::_parsePath::_parseNumber has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
(anonymous)::updateLegend (cyclomatic 34) c3.js:8336— (anonymous)::updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::updateSizes (cyclomatic 31) c3.js:1509— (anonymous)::updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::initWithData (cyclomatic 25) c3.js:1337— (anonymous)::initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous)::getHorizontalAxisHeight (cyclomatic 22) c3.js:9899— (anonymous)::getHorizontalAxisHeight has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
(anonymous)::updateGrid (cyclomatic 21) c3.js:7762— (anonymous)::updateGrid has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
(anonymous)::getTooltipContent (cyclomatic 20) c3.js:10918— (anonymous)::getTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
(anonymous)::updateLegend::updatePositions (cyclomatic 19) c3.js:8356— (anonymous)::updateLegend::updatePositions has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
(anonymous)::initParams (cyclomatic 17) c3.js:1224— (anonymous)::initParams has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
(anonymous)::transformForArcLabel (cyclomatic 17) c3.js:5079— (anonymous)::transformForArcLabel 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
(anonymous)::redrawArc (cyclomatic 17) c3.js:5294— (anonymous)::redrawArc 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::(anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
FileTooLong: ./c3.esm.js c3.esm.js— FileTooLong — 10061 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded; the length bar is tripled for a single-responsibility module of 4 or fewer top-level units). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 9561 over it, 20.12× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: js/c3.esm.js docs/js/c3.esm.js— FileTooLong — 10061 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 9561 over it, 20.12× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: ./c3.js c3.js— FileTooLong — 8309 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded; the length bar is tripled for a single-responsibility module of 4 or fewer top-level units). The bar is 1500 significant lines; this is 6809 over it, 5.54× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: js/c3.js docs/js/c3.js— FileTooLong — 8309 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 7809 over it, 16.62× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/core.ts src/core.ts— FileTooLong — 902 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 402 over it, 1.80× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/arc.ts src/arc.ts— FileTooLong — 621 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 1.24× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
R4 · Test Coverage· No test reaches this file · ×5
No test reaches this file c3.esm.js— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file c3.js— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file extensions/js/c3ext.js— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file extensions/chart-bubble/bubble.js— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file extensions/exporter/phantom-exporter.js— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.3:1) c3.css:159— `.c3-tooltip th` sets color: #FFF on background-color: #aaa — 2.3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.3:1) extensions/chart-bubble/c3.css:159— `.c3-tooltip th` sets color: #FFF on background-color: #aaa — 2.3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.3:1) docs/css/c3.css:159— `.c3-tooltip th` sets color: #FFF on background-color: #aaa — 2.3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:410— c3.esm.js:410 · c3.js:358 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:819— c3.esm.js:819 · c3.js:737 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:4692— c3.esm.js:4692 · c3.js:3665 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Complex function redraw (cyclomatic 45, cognitive 56) c3.esm.js:1949— redraw has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 56; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function redraw (cyclomatic 45, cognitive 56) c3.js:1623— redraw has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 56; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function redraw (cyclomatic 45, cognitive 56) src/core.ts:559— redraw has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 56; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function _parseNumber (cyclomatic 38, cognitive 43) c3.esm.js:4656— _parseNumber has cyclomatic complexity 38 and cognitive complexity 43; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function _parseNumber (cyclomatic 38, cognitive 43) c3.js:3640— _parseNumber has cyclomatic complexity 38 and cognitive complexity 43; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function _parseNumber (cyclomatic 38, cognitive 43) src/polyfill.ts:1929— _parseNumber has cyclomatic complexity 38 and cognitive complexity 43; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function updateLegend (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 35) c3.esm.js:10324— updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function updateLegend (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 35) c3.js:8336— updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function updateLegend (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 35) src/legend.ts:169— updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function initWithData (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 27) c3.esm.js:1589— initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function initWithData (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 27) c3.js:1337— initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function initWithData (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 27) src/core.ts:198— initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
AC3 · Page structure· Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 · ×2
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 docs/_sample.haml:11— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 docs/_samples_header.haml:11— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics· Anchor without href · ×2
Anchor without href docs/index.html.haml:9— An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action.
Anchor without href docs/js/index.js:153— An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) c3.esm.js:10324— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 68 (threshold 15). Of this number, 58 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) docs/js/c3.esm.js:10324— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 68 (threshold 15). Of this number, 58 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) c3.js:8336— c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 68 (threshold 15). Of this number, 58 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) docs/js/c3.js:8336— c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 68 (threshold 15). Of this number, 58 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redraw (cyclomatic 49) c3.esm.js:1949— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redraw has cyclomatic complexity 49 (threshold 15). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redraw (cyclomatic 49) docs/js/c3.esm.js:1949— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redraw has cyclomatic complexity 49 (threshold 15). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redraw (cyclomatic 49) c3.js:1623— c3.ChartInternal.redraw has cyclomatic complexity 49 (threshold 15). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redraw (cyclomatic 49) docs/js/c3.js:1623— c3.ChartInternal.redraw has cyclomatic complexity 49 (threshold 15). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cyclomatic 45) c3.esm.js:9011— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cyclomatic 45) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9011— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cyclomatic 45) c3.js:7270— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cyclomatic 45) docs/js/c3.js:7270— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cyclomatic 44) c3.esm.js:6727— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cyclomatic 44) docs/js/c3.esm.js:6727— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cyclomatic 44) c3.js:5294— c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cyclomatic 44) docs/js/c3.js:5294— c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cyclomatic 40) c3.esm.js:9898— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9956, 10058, 9938, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cyclomatic 40) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9898— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9956, 10058, 9938, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cyclomatic 40) c3.js:7998— c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8042, 8121, 8027, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cyclomatic 40) docs/js/c3.js:7998— c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8042, 8121, 8027, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cyclomatic 31) c3.esm.js:7880— c3.esm.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 7913, 7963, 8002, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cyclomatic 31) docs/js/c3.esm.js:7880— c3.esm.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 7913, 7963, 8002, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cyclomatic 31) c3.js:1509— c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cyclomatic 31) docs/js/c3.js:1509— c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cyclomatic 31) c3.js:6317— c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 6339, 6384, 6416, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cyclomatic 31) docs/js/c3.js:6317— c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 6339, 6384, 6416, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cyclomatic 29) c3.esm.js:1805— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cyclomatic 29) docs/js/c3.esm.js:1805— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.Chart.flow (cyclomatic 28) c3.esm.js:5326— c3.esm.Chart.flow has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.Chart.flow (cyclomatic 28) docs/js/c3.esm.js:5326— c3.esm.Chart.flow has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.Chart.flow (cyclomatic 28) c3.js:4151— c3.Chart.flow has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.Chart.flow (cyclomatic 28) docs/js/c3.js:4151— c3.Chart.flow has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData (cyclomatic 25) c3.esm.js:1589— c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData (cyclomatic 25) docs/js/c3.esm.js:1589— c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cyclomatic 25) c3.esm.js:5486— c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 5491, 5605). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cyclomatic 25) docs/js/c3.esm.js:5486— c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 5491, 5605). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cyclomatic 25) c3.esm.js:13222— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 13351, 13374, 13399, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cyclomatic 25) docs/js/c3.esm.js:13222— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 13351, 13374, 13399, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.initWithData (cyclomatic 25) c3.js:1337— c3.ChartInternal.initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.initWithData (cyclomatic 25) docs/js/c3.js:1337— c3.ChartInternal.initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cyclomatic 25) c3.js:4290— c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 4292, 4364). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cyclomatic 25) docs/js/c3.js:4290— c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 4292, 4364). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cyclomatic 25) c3.js:10644— c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 10752, 10774, 10799, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cyclomatic 25) docs/js/c3.js:10644— c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 10752, 10774, 10799, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cyclomatic 23) c3.esm.js:9620— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cyclomatic 23) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9620— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cyclomatic 23) c3.js:7762— c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cyclomatic 23) docs/js/c3.js:7762— c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cyclomatic 22) c3.js:9899— c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cyclomatic 22) docs/js/c3.js:9899— c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cyclomatic 20) c3.esm.js:11712— c3.esm.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cyclomatic 20) docs/js/c3.esm.js:11712— c3.esm.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cyclomatic 20) c3.esm.js:12253— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cyclomatic 20) docs/js/c3.esm.js:12253— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cyclomatic 20) c3.esm.js:13540— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cyclomatic 20) docs/js/c3.esm.js:13540— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cyclomatic 20) c3.js:9466— c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cyclomatic 20) docs/js/c3.js:9466— c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cyclomatic 20) c3.js:10918— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cyclomatic 20) docs/js/c3.js:10918— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel (cyclomatic 17) c3.esm.js:6461— c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel (cyclomatic 17) docs/js/c3.esm.js:6461— c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel (cyclomatic 17) c3.js:5079— c3.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel (cyclomatic 17) docs/js/c3.js:5079— c3.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
copy (cyclomatic 17) extensions/js/c3ext.js:282— copy has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
copy (cyclomatic 17) htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js:282— copy has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.drag (cyclomatic 16) c3.esm.js:9308— c3.esm.ChartInternal.drag has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 9344). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.drag (cyclomatic 16) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9308— c3.esm.ChartInternal.drag has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 9344). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cyclomatic 16) c3.esm.js:13465— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cyclomatic 16) docs/js/c3.esm.js:13465— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.esm.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.drag (cyclomatic 16) c3.js:7488— c3.ChartInternal.drag has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 7518). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.drag (cyclomatic 16) docs/js/c3.js:7488— c3.ChartInternal.drag has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 7518). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cyclomatic 16) c3.js:10852— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cyclomatic 16) docs/js/c3.js:10852— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: c3.AxisInternal.generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) c3.esm.js:9898— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (42 pts), ternaries 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 26). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 66 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9956, 10058, 9938, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9898— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (42 pts), ternaries 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 26). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 66 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9956, 10058, 9938, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) c3.js:7998— c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (42 pts), ternaries 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 26). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 66 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8042, 8121, 8027, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) docs/js/c3.js:7998— c3.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (42 pts), ternaries 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 26). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 66 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8042, 8121, 8027, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.redraw (cognitive 59) c3.js:1623— c3.ChartInternal.redraw has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (39 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 48 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redraw (cognitive 59) docs/js/c3.js:1623— c3.ChartInternal.redraw has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (39 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 48 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cognitive 57) c3.js:5294— c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), ternaries 16 (23 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 19). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 35 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cognitive 57) docs/js/c3.js:5294— c3.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), ternaries 16 (23 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 19). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 35 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cognitive 56) c3.esm.js:10324— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 20, if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 16 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 55 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cognitive 56) docs/js/c3.esm.js:10324— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 20, if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 16 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 55 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cognitive 56) c3.js:8336— c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 20, if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 16 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 55 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cognitive 56) docs/js/c3.js:8336— c3.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 20, if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 16 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 55 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.Chart.flow (cognitive 52) c3.js:4151— c3.Chart.flow has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (34 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 33 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.Chart.flow (cognitive 52) docs/js/c3.js:4151— c3.Chart.flow has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (34 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 33 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cognitive 45) c3.js:7270— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 9 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cognitive 45) docs/js/c3.js:7270— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 9 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cognitive 33) c3.esm.js:5486— c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 13, ternaries 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 5491, 5605). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cognitive 33) docs/js/c3.esm.js:5486— c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 13, ternaries 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 5491, 5605). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cognitive 33) c3.js:4290— c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 13, ternaries 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 4292, 4364). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cognitive 33) docs/js/c3.js:4290— c3.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 13, ternaries 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 4292, 4364). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cognitive 28) c3.js:10918— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (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.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cognitive 28) docs/js/c3.js:10918— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData (cognitive 27) c3.esm.js:1589— c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData (cognitive 27) docs/js/c3.esm.js:1589— c3.esm.ChartInternal.initWithData has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.initWithData (cognitive 27) c3.js:1337— c3.ChartInternal.initWithData has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.initWithData (cognitive 27) docs/js/c3.js:1337— c3.ChartInternal.initWithData has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cognitive 26) c3.js:9466— c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cognitive 26) docs/js/c3.js:9466— c3.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cognitive 24) c3.js:6317— c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cognitive 24) docs/js/c3.js:6317— c3.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin (cognitive 23) c3.js:7192— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin (cognitive 23) docs/js/c3.js:7192— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax (cognitive 23) c3.js:7231— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax (cognitive 23) docs/js/c3.js:7231— c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (c3.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cognitive 22) c3.js:10644— c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 19, if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 10799, 10752, 10774, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cognitive 22) docs/js/c3.js:10644— c3.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 19, if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 10799, 10752, 10774, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset (cognitive 21) c3.esm.js:11444— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 11456, 11474, 11452, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset (cognitive 21) docs/js/c3.esm.js:11444— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 11456, 11474, 11452, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset (cognitive 21) c3.js:9240— c3.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9246, 9263, 9244, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset (cognitive 21) docs/js/c3.js:9240— c3.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9246, 9263, 9244, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
ZoomBehavior (cognitive 21) extensions/js/c3ext.js:128— ZoomBehavior has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (18 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 18 function items inside it that branch (verifyZoom, left, setOptions, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
ZoomBehavior (cognitive 21) htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js:128— ZoomBehavior has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (18 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 18 function items inside it that branch (verifyZoom, left, setOptions, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
copy (cognitive 21) extensions/js/c3ext.js:282— copy has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
copy (cognitive 21) htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js:282— copy has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cognitive 20) c3.js:1509— c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, boolean chains 6, ternaries 6. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cognitive 20) docs/js/c3.js:1509— c3.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, boolean chains 6, ternaries 6. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cognitive 20) c3.js:7762— c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 18, if/else 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cognitive 20) docs/js/c3.js:7762— c3.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 18, if/else 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cognitive 20) c3.js:10852— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cognitive 20) docs/js/c3.js:10852— c3.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.ChartInternal.getYForText (cognitive 18) c3.js:10360— c3.ChartInternal.getYForText has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
c3.ChartInternal.getYForText (cognitive 18) docs/js/c3.js:10360— c3.ChartInternal.getYForText has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
c3.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine (cognitive 17) c3.js:9404— c3.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), ternaries 6 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9420, 9405, 9407). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine (cognitive 17) docs/js/c3.js:9404— c3.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), ternaries 6 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 9420, 9405, 9407). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
generate (cognitive 17) extensions/js/c3ext.js:2— generate has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 13 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
generate (cognitive 17) htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js:2— generate has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 13 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformMain (cognitive 16) c3.esm.js:2405— c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformMain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformMain (cognitive 16) docs/js/c3.esm.js:2405— c3.esm.ChartInternal.transformMain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.load (cognitive 16) c3.esm.js:8790— c3.esm.ChartInternal.load has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8805, 8799). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.load (cognitive 16) docs/js/c3.esm.js:8790— c3.esm.ChartInternal.load has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8805, 8799). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.transformMain (cognitive 16) c3.js:1983— c3.ChartInternal.transformMain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.transformMain (cognitive 16) docs/js/c3.js:1983— c3.ChartInternal.transformMain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.ChartInternal.load (cognitive 16) c3.js:7091— c3.ChartInternal.load has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 7106, 7100). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.load (cognitive 16) docs/js/c3.js:7091— c3.ChartInternal.load has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 7106, 7100). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cognitive 16) c3.js:9899— c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 6, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cognitive 16) docs/js/c3.js:9899— c3.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 6, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Duplicated block (89 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:7400— c3.esm.js:7400 · src/config.ts:4 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (89 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:10526— c3.esm.js:10526 · c3.js:8485 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (68 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:10390— c3.esm.js:10390 · c3.js:8360 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (68 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:13610— c3.esm.js:13610 · c3.js:10965 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (60 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:6852— c3.esm.js:6852 · c3.js:5388 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (60 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:7017— c3.esm.js:7017 · c3.js:5533 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (59 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:9230— c3.esm.js:9230 · c3.js:7425 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (59 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:11111— c3.esm.js:11111 · c3.js:8968 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (54 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:5670— c3.esm.js:5670 · c3.js:4423 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (54 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:6132— c3.esm.js:6132 · c3.js:4804 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Complex function getYDomain (cyclomatic 45, cognitive 51) c3.esm.js:9011— getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function getYDomain (cyclomatic 45, cognitive 51) c3.js:7270— getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function updateSizes (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 30) c3.js:1509— updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function updateSizes (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 30) src/core.ts:414— updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function parseSegment (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 7) c3.esm.js:4797— parseSegment has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 7; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function parseSegment (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 7) c3.js:3748— parseSegment has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 7; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
AC3 · Page structure· Page without a main landmark · ×1
Page without a main landmark docs/layouts/layout.haml:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.9:1) docs/css/foundation.css:1116— `button.success, .button.success` sets color: white on background-color: #43ac6a — 2.9:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
AC7 · A11y enforcement· Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 16 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
legend.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cyclomatic 68) src/legend.ts:169— legend.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cyclomatic complexity 68 (threshold 15). Of this number, 58 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
core.ChartInternal.redraw (cyclomatic 49) src/core.ts:559— core.ChartInternal.redraw has cyclomatic complexity 49 (threshold 15). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
domain.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cyclomatic 45) src/domain.ts:108— domain.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
arc.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cyclomatic 44) src/arc.ts:438— arc.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
interaction.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cyclomatic 40) src/interaction.ts:30— interaction.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 88, 190, 70, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
core.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cyclomatic 31) src/core.ts:414— core.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
data.convert.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cyclomatic 31) src/data.convert.ts:172— data.convert.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 205, 255, 294, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
api.flow.Chart.flow (cyclomatic 28) src/api.flow.ts:5— api.flow.Chart.flow has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
core.ChartInternal.initWithData (cyclomatic 25) src/core.ts:198— core.ChartInternal.initWithData has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
api.flow.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cyclomatic 25) src/api.flow.ts:165— api.flow.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 170, 284). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
stanfordelements.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cyclomatic 25) src/stanfordelements.ts:18— stanfordelements.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 147, 170, 195, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
generateAxis (cyclomatic 25) c3.esm.js:424— generateAxis has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 29 function items inside it that branch (axis::(anonymous), orient, tickInterval, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
initParams (cyclomatic 25) c3.esm.js:1459— initParams has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
grid.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cyclomatic 23) src/grid.ts:143— grid.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3ext.c3ext.ZoomBehavior (cyclomatic 22) extensions/js/c3ext.js:128— c3ext.c3ext.ZoomBehavior has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
size.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cyclomatic 22) src/size.ts:130— size.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ZoomBehavior (cyclomatic 22) htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js:128— ZoomBehavior has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 18 function items inside it that branch (setOptions, verifyZoom, left, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
shape.line.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cyclomatic 20) src/shape.line.ts:178— shape.line.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cyclomatic 20) src/tooltip.ts:119— tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
updateLegend::updatePositions (cyclomatic 19) c3.esm.js:10381— updateLegend::updatePositions has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
arc.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel (cyclomatic 17) src/arc.ts:170— arc.ChartInternal.transformForArcLabel has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3ext.c3ext.generate (cyclomatic 16) extensions/js/c3ext.js:2— c3ext.c3ext.generate has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
drag.ChartInternal.drag (cyclomatic 16) src/drag.ts:5— drag.ChartInternal.drag has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 41). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cyclomatic 16) src/tooltip.ts:44— tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
updateScales (cyclomatic 16) c3.esm.js:10995— updateScales has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
initBrush (cyclomatic 16) c3.esm.js:12290— initBrush has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function items inside it that branch ((anonymous), selectionAsValue, (anonymous), …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: (anonymous)::_parsePath::parseSegment (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
generate (cyclomatic 16) htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js:2— generate has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 9 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 13 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
FixmeComment src/polyfill.ts:1608— // FIXME: The following are not implemented and simply return window.SVGPathElement.pathSegList. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
redraw (cognitive 67) c3.esm.js:1949— redraw has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (39 pts), ternaries 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 12, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 56 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 6 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
interaction.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect (cognitive 66) src/interaction.ts:30— interaction.ChartInternal.redrawEventRect has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (42 pts), ternaries 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 26). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 66 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 88, 190, 70, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
redrawArc (cognitive 62) c3.esm.js:6727— redrawArc has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 21 (34 pts), if/else 18 (23 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 18). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 37 belong to 24 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redraw (cognitive 59) docs/js/c3.esm.js:1949— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redraw has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (39 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 48 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
core.ChartInternal.redraw (cognitive 59) src/core.ts:559— core.ChartInternal.redraw has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (39 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 48 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cognitive 57) docs/js/c3.esm.js:6727— c3.esm.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), ternaries 16 (23 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 19). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 35 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
arc.ChartInternal.redrawArc (cognitive 57) src/arc.ts:438— arc.ChartInternal.redrawArc has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), ternaries 16 (23 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 19). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 35 belong to 16 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
legend.ChartInternal.updateLegend (cognitive 56) src/legend.ts:169— legend.ChartInternal.updateLegend has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 20, if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 16 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 55 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
flow (cognitive 54) c3.esm.js:5326— flow has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (34 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), ternaries 4 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 24). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 33 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
c3.esm.Chart.flow (cognitive 52) docs/js/c3.esm.js:5326— c3.esm.Chart.flow has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (34 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 33 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
api.flow.Chart.flow (cognitive 52) src/api.flow.ts:5— api.flow.Chart.flow has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (34 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 33 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
getYDomain (cognitive 51) c3.esm.js:9011— getYDomain has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), ternaries 15 (18 pts), boolean chains 12 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cognitive 45) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9011— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 9 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
domain.ChartInternal.getYDomain (cognitive 45) src/domain.ts:108— domain.ChartInternal.getYDomain has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (21 pts), boolean chains 12, ternaries 9 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
lineWithRegions (cognitive 42) c3.esm.js:11712— lineWithRegions has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (22 pts), ternaries 5 (11 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). Of this number, 32 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 8 function items inside it that branch. 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.
getTooltipContent (cognitive 42) c3.esm.js:13540— getTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), ternaries 4 (14 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
convertDataToTargets (cognitive 40) c3.esm.js:7880— convertDataToTargets has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (23 pts), boolean chains 9, ternaries 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 14 function literals inside it that branch (lines 7963, 7913, 8006, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
api.flow.ChartInternal.generateFlow (cognitive 33) src/api.flow.ts:165— api.flow.ChartInternal.generateFlow has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 13, ternaries 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 170, 284). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
generateAxis (cognitive 29) c3.esm.js:424— generateAxis has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (17 pts), ternaries 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 29 function items inside it that branch (axis::(anonymous), tickValues, tickInterval, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cognitive 28) docs/js/c3.esm.js:13540— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (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.
tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent (cognitive 28) src/tooltip.ts:119— tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (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.
updateSizes (cognitive 28) c3.esm.js:1805— updateSizes has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 15, if/else 8, boolean chains 5. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
getTooltipSortFunction (cognitive 28) c3.esm.js:13465— getTooltipSortFunction has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), ternaries 3 (10 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 12). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 7 function items inside it that branch. 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.
core.ChartInternal.initWithData (cognitive 27) src/core.ts:198— core.ChartInternal.initWithData has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
transformForArcLabel (cognitive 27) c3.esm.js:6461— transformForArcLabel has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (16 pts), if/else 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cognitive 26) docs/js/c3.esm.js:11712— c3.esm.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
shape.line.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions (cognitive 26) src/shape.line.ts:178— shape.line.ChartInternal.lineWithRegions has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
getYDomainMin (cognitive 26) c3.esm.js:8907— getYDomainMin has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
getYDomainMax (cognitive 26) c3.esm.js:8959— getYDomainMax has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
updateStanfordElements (cognitive 25) c3.esm.js:13222— updateStanfordElements has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 22, if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 25 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 26 function literals inside it that branch (lines 13399, 13351, 13374, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cognitive 24) docs/js/c3.esm.js:7880— c3.esm.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
data.convert.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets (cognitive 24) src/data.convert.ts:172— data.convert.ChartInternal.convertDataToTargets has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
initParams (cognitive 24) c3.esm.js:1459— initParams has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 13, if/else 7, boolean chains 4. Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin (cognitive 23) docs/js/c3.esm.js:8907— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax (cognitive 23) docs/js/c3.esm.js:8959— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
domain.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin (cognitive 23) src/domain.ts:4— domain.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (domain.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
domain.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax (cognitive 23) src/domain.ts:56— domain.ChartInternal.getYDomainMax has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (domain.ChartInternal.getYDomainMin) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cognitive 22) docs/js/c3.esm.js:13222— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 19, if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 13399, 13351, 13374, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
stanfordelements.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements (cognitive 22) src/stanfordelements.ts:18— stanfordelements.ChartInternal.updateStanfordElements has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 19, if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 21 function literals inside it that branch (lines 195, 147, 170, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
updateGrid (cognitive 22) c3.esm.js:9620— updateGrid has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 20, if/else 2. Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
shape.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset (cognitive 21) src/shape.ts:56— shape.ChartInternal.getShapeOffset has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 68, 86, 64, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
updateLegend::updatePositions (cognitive 21) c3.esm.js:10381— updateLegend::updatePositions has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 8, ternaries 4 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
getYForText (cognitive 21) c3.esm.js:12816— getYForText has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (3 pts) (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.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cognitive 20) docs/js/c3.esm.js:9620— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 18, if/else 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cognitive 20) docs/js/c3.esm.js:13465— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
core.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cognitive 20) src/core.ts:414— core.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, boolean chains 6, ternaries 6. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
grid.ChartInternal.updateGrid (cognitive 20) src/grid.ts:143— grid.ChartInternal.updateGrid has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 18, if/else 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction (cognitive 20) src/tooltip.ts:44— tooltip.ChartInternal.getTooltipSortFunction has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
getTranslate (cognitive 20) c3.esm.js:2317— getTranslate has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (12 pts), if/else 8 (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.
getRatio (cognitive 20) c3.esm.js:8741— getRatio has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
generateDrawLine (cognitive 20) c3.esm.js:11631— generateDrawLine has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), ternaries 8 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function items inside it that branch ((anonymous), xValue, yValue, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
getXDomain (cognitive 19) c3.esm.js:9225— getXDomain has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (10 pts), if/else 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateSizes (cognitive 18) docs/js/c3.esm.js:1805— c3.esm.ChartInternal.updateSizes has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, boolean chains 5, ternaries 5. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYForText (cognitive 18) docs/js/c3.esm.js:12816— c3.esm.ChartInternal.getYForText has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
text.ChartInternal.getYForText (cognitive 18) src/text.ts:153— text.ChartInternal.getYForText has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
splitTickText (cognitive 18) c3.esm.js:311— splitTickText has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (10 pts), if/else 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function item inside it that branches (split). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
initBrush (cognitive 18) c3.esm.js:12290— initBrush has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 18 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 9 function items inside it that branch (selectionAsValue, (anonymous), (anonymous), …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine (cognitive 17) docs/js/c3.esm.js:11631— c3.esm.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), ternaries 6 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 11654, 11637, 11640). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
shape.line.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine (cognitive 17) src/shape.line.ts:97— shape.line.ChartInternal.generateDrawLine has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), ternaries 6 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 120, 103, 106). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
generateDrawArea (cognitive 17) c3.esm.js:11898— generateDrawArea has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 9 (10 pts), if/else 5 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function items inside it that branch ((anonymous), xValue, value0, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
getHorizontalAxisHeight (cognitive 17) c3.esm.js:12253— getHorizontalAxisHeight has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 7, if/else 6, ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
core.ChartInternal.transformMain (cognitive 16) src/core.ts:1015— core.ChartInternal.transformMain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — 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.
data.load.ChartInternal.load (cognitive 16) src/data.load.ts:4— data.load.ChartInternal.load has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 19, 13). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
size.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight (cognitive 16) src/size.ts:130— size.ChartInternal.getHorizontalAxisHeight has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 6, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
bindResize (cognitive 16) c3.esm.js:2550— bindResize has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 8 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 6 function items inside it that branch. 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.
updateScales (cognitive 16) c3.esm.js:10995— updateScales has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 12, if/else 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 1). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty· Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
Type Safety — 96 typed · 7 plain JS — the untyped files are c3.esm.js, c3.js, extensions/chart-bubble/bubble.js, extensions/exporter/phantom-exporter.js, extensions/js/c3ext.js, htdocs/js/extensions/c3ext.js (+1 more). tsconfig.json switches off noImplicitAny, strictNullChecks, noImplicitThis, so the typed files are only partly type-checked. 1 production file(s) opt out entirely with @ts-nocheck · 0 @ts-ignore suppression(s); the opted-out files are src/polyfill.ts.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (558 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (558 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:12425— c3.esm.js:12425 · c3.js:10050 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 4669 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (225 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:1956— c3.esm.js:1956 · c3.js:1625 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (164 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:2403— c3.esm.js:2403 · c3.js:1982 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (155 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (155 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:9011— c3.esm.js:9011 · src/domain.ts:108 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 932 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (147 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:5310— c3.esm.js:5310 · c3.js:4137 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (120 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:1513— c3.esm.js:1513 · c3.js:1270 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (118 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:5517— c3.esm.js:5517 · c3.js:4294 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (118 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (118 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:13268— c3.esm.js:13268 · src/stanfordelements.ts:64 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 852 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (99 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:1824— c3.esm.js:1824 · c3.js:1517 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (87 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:10138— c3.esm.js:10138 · c3.js:8179 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (83 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:5786— c3.esm.js:5786 · c3.js:4519 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (80 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (80 matched lines × 2 locations) src/shape.line.ts:78— src/shape.line.ts:78 · src/shape.line.ts:345 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 547 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (75 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (75 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:13465— c3.esm.js:13465 · src/tooltip.ts:44 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 243 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (72 lines × 2 locations) src/polyfill.ts:656— src/polyfill.ts:656 · src/polyfill.ts:789 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (69 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (69 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:7831— c3.esm.js:7831 · src/data.convert.ts:123 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 491 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (67 lines × 2 locations) src/polyfill.ts:233— src/polyfill.ts:233 · src/polyfill.ts:350 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (66 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:8788— c3.esm.js:8788 · c3.js:7089 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (65 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:10260— c3.esm.js:10260 · c3.js:8275 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (64 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:6007— c3.esm.js:6007 · c3.js:4708 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (63 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (63 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:11400— c3.esm.js:11400 · src/shape.ts:12 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 551 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (61 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (61 matched lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:12709— c3.esm.js:12709 · src/text.ts:46 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 399 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (60 lines × 4 locations) src/polyfill.ts:466— src/polyfill.ts:466 · src/polyfill.ts:560 · src/polyfill.ts:1048 · src/polyfill.ts:1150 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (56 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:4812— c3.esm.js:4812 · src/polyfill.ts:2085 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (55 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:4435— c3.esm.js:4435 · c3.js:3455 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (52 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:9044— c3.esm.js:9044 · c3.js:7280 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (50 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:1221— c3.esm.js:1221 · c3.js:1047 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (46 lines × 2 locations) c3.esm.js:9854— c3.esm.js:9854 · c3.js:7958 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Complex function getYDomain (cyclomatic 45, cognitive 50) src/domain.ts:108— getYDomain has cyclomatic complexity 45 and cognitive complexity 50; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function updateSizes (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 28) c3.esm.js:1805— updateSizes has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 28; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Dead file (~14027 LoC) c3.esm.js— no import path from any entry point (67 application, 2 tooling, 33 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
Dead file (~360 LoC) extensions/js/c3ext.js— no import path from any entry point (67 application, 2 tooling, 33 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
Dead file (~144 LoC) extensions/exporter/phantom-exporter.js— no import path from any entry point (67 application, 2 tooling, 33 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
Unused dependency 'clean-css-cli' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Unused dependency 'jshint-stylish' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Unused dependency 'node-static' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Third-party script without Subresource Integrity REDACTED:8— `http://d3js.org/d3.v4.min.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:6537— `!$$.hasType('gauge') && !$$.meetsArcLabelThreshold(ratio)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:13768— `!config.data_types[id] || ['line', 'spline', 'area', 'area-spline', 'step', 'area-step'].indexOf( config.data_types[id] ) >= 0` appears character-identically in 3 files — c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, src/type.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.js:11096— `!config.data_types[id] || ['line', 'spline', 'area', 'area-spline', 'step', 'area-step'].indexOf(config.data_types[id]) >= 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — c3.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:9997— `!config.tooltip_grouped || $$.hasType('stanford', targetsToShow)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:12307— `$$.brush.empty() && event && event.type !== 'end'` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:6477— `$$.hasType('donut') && config.donut_label_ratio` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:6331— `$$.hasType('donut') || $$.hasType('gauge')` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:1896— `$$.hasType('gauge') && !config.gauge_fullCircle` appears character-identically in 6 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:6481— `$$.hasType('pie') && config.pie_label_ratio` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:9778— `$$.hasType('stanford') || $$.hasArcType()` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:2375— `$$.isCategorized() && typeof d.value === 'string'` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:882— `$$.isTimeSeries() && tickValues && typeof tickValues !== 'function'` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:5834— `'cacheIds' in args && $$.hasCaches(args.cacheIds)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:5818— `'categories' in args && $$.isCategorized()` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:8569— `'data' in d && this.hasTarget(this.data.targets, d.data.id)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:9041— `($$.hasType('bar', yTargets) && config.bar_zerobased) || ($$.hasType('area', yTargets) && config.area_zerobased)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:2483— `(brush.size() && brush.attr('height')) || 0` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:9126— `axisId === 'y' && notEmpty(config.axis_y_padding)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:9140— `axisId === 'y2' && notEmpty(config.axis_y2_padding)` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:13483— `isString(order) && order.toLowerCase() === 'asc'` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:13487— `isString(order) && order.toLowerCase() === 'desc'` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:4737— `this._currentIndex != startIndex && this._currentIndex + 1 < this._endIndex && (this._string.charAt(this._currentIndex) == 'e' || this._stri…` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:4550— `this._currentIndex < this._endIndex && !this._isCurrentSpace() && this._string.charAt(this._currentIndex) != ','` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:4670— `this._currentIndex < this._endIndex && this._string.charAt(this._currentIndex) == '+'` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate c3.esm.js:4557— `this._currentIndex < this._endIndex && this._string.charAt(this._currentIndex) == ','` appears character-identically in 5 files — c3.esm.js, c3.js, docs/js/c3.esm.js, docs/js/c3.js. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 2 of 39 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — 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; 39 of the 71 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 — most significant first: src/shape.ts, src/class.ts. 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.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
README/code drift — README claims a dependency on D3.js but the package.json manifest lists no d3 dependency — searched for: `D3.js`. 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's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — 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.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1138 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
Skipped (documented): should split tick text properly spec/axis-spec.ts:674— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: switched off by xit
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `docs/js/ace/worker-javascript.js` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover them at all.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a0faab-dcf2-7743-81b8-3b9a8623055b · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 30 · Warnings: 432 · Recommendations: 41 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 02-10-2026 @ 03:32 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.