Public report of eazybytes/event-driven-microservices, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 21:49 UTC · Survey ID cd_e625d5d6f425497caa0941063da398c7
eazybytes/event-driven-microservices
Measured 21 October 2026, 21:47 UTC, at code version 19c179c
CAI scoreAt riskUp 1 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A small codebase: 19,066 lines of product code in 50 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 21
Findings by how serious they are
75 critical260 serious9 minor
21 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 21:47 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
A critical security finding is open, such as a library with a known critical vulnerability or a password or key found in the code. The score itself is unchanged, but its band shows At risk until the finding is fixed. See the Security and Compliance lens.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
65of 68 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
337of 344 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 7 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
68dimensions across 8 lenses, read from 19,066 lines of product code in 50 projects.
eazybytes/event-driven-microservices scores 42 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 21 and is rated Critical. Its Test Quality dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 8 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality and to resolve the 8 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 42 to about 57.
75 findings are critical: 36 in Static Analysis (SAST), 29 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, eight in Test Quality and two in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR).
Watchdog couldn't measure 18 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 19,066 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €23,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
If Production Readiness rose from 21 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 42 to about 57.
Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 98%Tests 2%
New since the last survey: 41 findings
These 41 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026.
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section5/cards/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section5/customer/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/customer/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/eazy-bom/common/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/common/CommonApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/eurekaserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/eurekaserver/EurekaserverApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section6/loans/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section4/accounts section4/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section4/eazy-bom/common section4/eazy-bom/common/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/common/CommonApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section4/eurekaserver section4/eurekaserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/eurekaserver/EurekaserverApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section5/cards section5/cards/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section5/customer section5/customer/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/customer/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section6/loans section6/loans/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplicationTests.java
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 13 findings
These 13 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section6/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section7/cards/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section7/customer/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/customer/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section7/eazy-bom/common/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/common/CommonApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section6/eurekaserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/eurekaserver/EurekaserverApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section1/01_end/loans/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section1/01_end/loans section1/01_end/loans/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section6/accounts section6/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section6/eurekaserver section6/eurekaserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/eurekaserver/EurekaserverApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section7/cards section7/cards/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section7/customer section7/customer/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/customer/AccountsApplicationTests.java
Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing: section7/eazy-bom/common section7/eazy-bom/common/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/common/CommonApplicationTests.java
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €23,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€7,800 to €39,000, for 129 to 410 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
High, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.7 at a score of 42. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Small: 19,066 lines of product code
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 8 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AccountsApplicationTests.java (2), CardsApplicationTests.java, CommonApplicationTests.java.
Raises the score by about 11 points · Low effort · Test Quality
2
Resolve the 8 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AccountsApplicationTests.java (2), CommonApplicationTests.java, EurekaserverApplicationTests.java.
Raises the score by about 11 points · Low effort · Test Quality
3
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Raises the score by about 6 points · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €23,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 21 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 8 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 points for low effort, because it clears the 8 Test Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
110 modules, with 133 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 70 more are left out to keep it readable.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
accounts.mapper uses accounts.command.event, so a change to accounts.command.event can break accounts.mapper, while a change to accounts.mapper can't break accounts.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.mapper uses accounts.entity, so a change to accounts.entity can break accounts.mapper, while a change to accounts.mapper can't break accounts.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.repository uses accounts.entity, so a change to accounts.entity can break accounts.repository, while a change to accounts.repository can't break accounts.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service uses accounts.command.event, so a change to accounts.command.event can break accounts.service, while a change to accounts.service can't break accounts.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service uses accounts.dto, so a change to accounts.dto can break accounts.service, while a change to accounts.service can't break accounts.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service uses accounts.entity, so a change to accounts.entity can break accounts.service, while a change to accounts.service can't break accounts.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.mapper uses cards.command.event, so a change to cards.command.event can break cards.mapper, while a change to cards.mapper can't break cards.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.repository uses cards.entity, so a change to cards.entity can break cards.repository, while a change to cards.repository can't break cards.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.service uses cards.command.event, so a change to cards.command.event can break cards.service, while a change to cards.service can't break cards.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.mapper uses customer.command.event, so a change to customer.command.event can break customer.mapper, while a change to customer.mapper can't break customer.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.mapper uses customer.entity, so a change to customer.entity can break customer.mapper, while a change to customer.mapper can't break customer.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.repository uses customer.entity, so a change to customer.entity can break customer.repository, while a change to customer.repository can't break customer.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service uses customer.command.event, so a change to customer.command.event can break customer.service, while a change to customer.service can't break customer.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service uses customer.dto, so a change to customer.dto can break customer.service, while a change to customer.service can't break customer.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service uses customer.entity, so a change to customer.entity can break customer.service, while a change to customer.service can't break customer.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.mapper uses loans.command.event, so a change to loans.command.event can break loans.mapper, while a change to loans.mapper can't break loans.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.repository uses loans.entity, so a change to loans.entity can break loans.repository, while a change to loans.repository can't break loans.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.service uses loans.command.event, so a change to loans.command.event can break loans.service, while a change to loans.service can't break loans.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.query.handler uses accounts.dto, so a change to accounts.dto can break accounts.query.handler, while a change to accounts.query.handler can't break accounts.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.query.handler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.query.handler uses accounts.service, so a change to accounts.service can break accounts.query.handler, while a change to accounts.query.handler can't break accounts.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.query.handler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service.impl uses accounts.command.event, so a change to accounts.command.event can break accounts.service.impl, while a change to accounts.service.impl can't break accounts.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service.impl uses accounts.dto, so a change to accounts.dto can break accounts.service.impl, while a change to accounts.service.impl can't break accounts.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service.impl uses accounts.entity, so a change to accounts.entity can break accounts.service.impl, while a change to accounts.service.impl can't break accounts.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service.impl uses accounts.repository, so a change to accounts.repository can break accounts.service.impl, while a change to accounts.service.impl can't break accounts.repository.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
accounts.service.impl uses accounts.service, so a change to accounts.service can break accounts.service.impl, while a change to accounts.service.impl can't break accounts.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: accounts.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.query.handlers uses cards.dto, so a change to cards.dto can break cards.query.handlers, while a change to cards.query.handlers can't break cards.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.query.handlers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.query.handlers uses cards.service, so a change to cards.service can break cards.query.handlers, while a change to cards.query.handlers can't break cards.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.query.handlers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.service.impl uses cards.command.event, so a change to cards.command.event can break cards.service.impl, while a change to cards.service.impl can't break cards.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.service.impl uses cards.entity, so a change to cards.entity can break cards.service.impl, while a change to cards.service.impl can't break cards.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.service.impl uses cards.repository, so a change to cards.repository can break cards.service.impl, while a change to cards.service.impl can't break cards.repository.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
cards.service.impl uses cards.service, so a change to cards.service can break cards.service.impl, while a change to cards.service.impl can't break cards.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: cards.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.command.aggregate uses customer.command.event, so a change to customer.command.event can break customer.command.aggregate, while a change to customer.command.aggregate can't break customer.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.command.aggregate uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.command.aggregate uses customer.repository, so a change to customer.repository can break customer.command.aggregate, while a change to customer.command.aggregate can't break customer.repository.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.command.aggregate uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.controller uses common.dto, so a change to common.dto can break customer.controller, while a change to customer.controller can't break common.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.controller uses customer.dto, so a change to customer.dto can break customer.controller, while a change to customer.controller can't break customer.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.controller uses customer.service, so a change to customer.service can break customer.controller, while a change to customer.controller can't break customer.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.query.handler uses customer.dto, so a change to customer.dto can break customer.query.handler, while a change to customer.query.handler can't break customer.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.query.handler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.query.handler uses customer.service, so a change to customer.service can break customer.query.handler, while a change to customer.query.handler can't break customer.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.query.handler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service.impl uses customer.command.event, so a change to customer.command.event can break customer.service.impl, while a change to customer.service.impl can't break customer.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service.impl uses customer.dto, so a change to customer.dto can break customer.service.impl, while a change to customer.service.impl can't break customer.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service.impl uses customer.entity, so a change to customer.entity can break customer.service.impl, while a change to customer.service.impl can't break customer.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service.impl uses customer.repository, so a change to customer.repository can break customer.service.impl, while a change to customer.service.impl can't break customer.repository.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
customer.service.impl uses customer.service, so a change to customer.service can break customer.service.impl, while a change to customer.service.impl can't break customer.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: customer.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.query.handler uses loans.dto, so a change to loans.dto can break loans.query.handler, while a change to loans.query.handler can't break loans.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.query.handler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.query.handler uses loans.service, so a change to loans.service can break loans.query.handler, while a change to loans.query.handler can't break loans.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.query.handler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.service.impl uses loans.command.event, so a change to loans.command.event can break loans.service.impl, while a change to loans.service.impl can't break loans.command.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.service.impl uses loans.entity, so a change to loans.entity can break loans.service.impl, while a change to loans.service.impl can't break loans.entity.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.service.impl uses loans.repository, so a change to loans.repository can break loans.service.impl, while a change to loans.service.impl can't break loans.repository.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
loans.service.impl uses loans.service, so a change to loans.service can break loans.service.impl, while a change to loans.service.impl can't break loans.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: loans.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
profile.service.impl uses common.event, so a change to common.event can break profile.service.impl, while a change to profile.service.impl can't break common.event.
Position
Below the diagonal: profile.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
profile.service.impl uses profile.dto, so a change to profile.dto can break profile.service.impl, while a change to profile.service.impl can't break profile.dto.
Position
Below the diagonal: profile.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
profile.service.impl uses profile.service, so a change to profile.service can break profile.service.impl, while a change to profile.service.impl can't break profile.service.
Position
Below the diagonal: profile.service.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 74% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·
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
A05:2025 — Injection
57
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
44
High / Critical
A01:2025 — Broken Access Control
16
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, fix the eight empty and non-verifying tests in Accounts, Cards, Common, and Eurekaserver to ensure the test suite actually validates behavior. Next, establish a CI pipeline that runs these tests on every push or pull request to prevent regressions. Integrate static security analysis tools like SpotBugs or Semgrep into this workflow to fail the build on security issues. Finally, add timeouts and resilience patterns like circuit breakers to all outbound HTTP calls to prevent unbounded waits on external dependencies.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 8 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AccountsApplicationTests.java (2), CardsApplicationTests.java, CommonApplicationTests.java.
Resolve the 8 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AccountsApplicationTests.java (2), CommonApplicationTests.java, EurekaserverApplicationTests.java.
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Set connect and read timeouts on every client (`RestTemplateBuilder.connectTimeout/readTimeout`, WebClient `responseTimeout`, `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout`, `HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout`, Feign `connectTimeout`/`readTimeout` in configuration), and wrap calls to dependencies in resilience4j `@Retry`/`@CircuitBreaker`/`@TimeLimiter` (or Spring Retry).
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): contextLoads
How the grades work
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 — 75
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 — 260
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 9
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 21
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. 65 of 68 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 — 68 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, 337 of 344 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: test source is present (.java) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then 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 (.java) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (50 builds), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 57 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 0 dependency(ies) and leaving 297 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository's 57 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read and none of the dependency coordinates they declare carries a version resolvable from the manifest itself: every one is inherited from a parent POM, a <dependencyManagement> block, an imported BOM or a Gradle version reference the catalogue does not define. Licences are resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, which requires a version to ask about, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 35 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
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 an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
D27 Navigability — 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. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — 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. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (35 commit(s) sampled).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — 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. Arm one resolves each comparison operand to the domain member it judges, and that binding exists only in a Roslyn compilation, which this run did not load. Arm two ran over the neutral model because this repository's frontend declares whether each construction is produced or passed. A rule decided in two places would not appear above.
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 decides whether a handler's mutation is safe to re-run by recognising its persistence writes (a database save, a repository write, an event publish) and its guards. Those markers are .NET member names, so in this repository's language a write such as `repository.save(order)` is not recognised and a same-named call on an unrelated library type could be. The handlers were found; their idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out.
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 reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Java 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.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin 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.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin 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.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin 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.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.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.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
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.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
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.
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.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
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.
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
102 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 29 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×16REDACTED:32
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×13REDACTED:47
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×10REDACTED:58
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×6REDACTED:70
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:8
+ 44 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 16 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (3), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 13 Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AccountsAggregate.java (2), REDACTED, AccountsCommandInterceptor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CustomerCommandController.java (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
8 production modules (Maven), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 4 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with CustomerAggregate.java, CardAggregate.java, AccountsAggregate.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
8 test methods: 8 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.
0 skipped, 8 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 8 tests.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads · ×8section4/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java:10
Test project verifies nothing: section4/accounts · ×8section4/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java:10
What to do
Resolve the 8 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AccountsApplicationTests.java (2), CardsApplicationTests.java, CommonApplicationTests.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
Resolve the 8 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AccountsApplicationTests.java (2), CommonApplicationTests.java, EurekaserverApplicationTests.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Test Quality in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
0 deducted task-comment markers across 19066 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is a high-quality overview of Event Driven Microservices with CQRS/Saga/Event Sourcing using Spring Boot and Axon, covering topics, prerequisites, and important links. The architecture/design docs are internal section3 directories (Axon Server setup, CQRS setup in accounts, loans, cards) that document their own tiers rather than the repository as a whole, so they do not fall under any of the missing-overview/missing-installation categories. All visible documents are well-structured with headings and an outline; none is clipped. The READMEs for section6/customer/ and loans/ are each a directory README documenting that directory's CQRS and event-sourcing setup (Axon integration, subpackages, concrete command/event/aggregate classes, repository/mapper methods), with the exact structure visible in the body. The two files together cover the full scope of the project: customer and loan domain models plus Axon configuration; they are well-structured and complete for their respective directories.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is a high-quality overview of Event Driven Microservices with CQRS/Saga/Event Sourcing using Spring Boot and Axon, covering topics, prerequisites, and important links. The architecture/design docs are internal section3 directories (Axon Server setup, CQRS setup in accounts, loans, cards) that document their own tiers rather than the repository as a whole, so they do not fall under any of the missing-overview/missing-installation categories. All visible documents are well-structured with headings and an outline; none is clipped. The READMEs for section6/customer/ and loans/ are each a directory README documenting that directory's CQRS and event-sourcing setup (Axon integration, subpackages, concrete command/event/aggregate classes, repository/mapper methods), with the exact structure visible in the body. The two files together cover the full scope of the project: customer and loan domain models plus Axon configuration; they are well-structured and complete for their respective directories.
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 domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.
Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.
Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.
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).
57 finding(s): 0 critical, 36 high, 21 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 43 file(s) — `section1/00_start/accounts/mvnw` (lines 204–205, line 257), `section1/00_start/customer/mvnw` (lines 204–205, line 257), `section1/00_start/eazy-bom/common/mvnw` (line 86, line 121, line 131, …), `section1/00_start/eazy-bom/mvnw` (line 86, line 121, line 131, …), `section1/00_start/eurekaserver/mvnw` (lines 204–205, line 257), … (+38 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
What to do
Resolve the 36 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (36). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (36 issue-level).
Resolve the 21 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (4), REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
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 23 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (23). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 issue-level).
Resolve the 12 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (12). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)1.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.
Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.
Resolve the 14 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d32_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 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 7 platform declaration(s) and 82 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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 singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.
Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a single operation mutates more than one aggregate root. An aggregate is a consistency boundary, so saving two together fuses them into one — the second's invariants come to depend on the first's transaction, and the pair can no longer be separated. Reads of other aggregates are not counted.
Method: Neutral body surface (DDD-gated): every method body scanned for repository WRITE calls (Add/Update/Save/Remove/Delete/Insert/Store and their async forms), keyed on the ARGUMENT type rather than the repository type — three `IRepository<T>` writes collapse to one repository but are three distinct aggregates. Reads (Get/Find/Load/Query) are excluded, so loading another aggregate for context never counts. Score is offending methods over methods that write at all. Deterministic.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.
Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.
Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.
`Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×7) — section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15, section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15, section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15, …
`Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×7) — section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12, section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12, section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12, …
`Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×7) — section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15, section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15, section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15, …
`Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×7) — section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13, section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13, section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13, …
`Profile` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/entity/Profile.java:12
What to do
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.
Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) and keep the persistence query handle behind the contract, so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged, and (C#/VB) repository INTERFACES whose members return a live persistence query handle (IQueryable/DbSet/IMongoQueryable) — implementations and specification evaluators are out of population by design, since composing a query internally is what an implementation is for. Deterministic, DDD-native.
Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.
`LoansRepository` is a repository over `Loans`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Loans` through its owning aggregate instead. — section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/repository/LoansRepository.java:10
`CustomerRepository` is a repository over `Customer`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Customer` through its owning aggregate instead. — section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/repository/CustomerRepository.java:10
`CardsRepository` is a repository over `Cards`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Cards` through its owning aggregate instead. — section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/repository/CardsRepository.java:10
`AccountsRepository` is a repository over `Accounts`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Accounts` through its owning aggregate instead. — section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/repository/AccountsRepository.java:10
`ProfileRepository` is a repository over `Profile`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Profile` through its owning aggregate instead. — section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/repository/ProfileRepository.java:10
What to do
Define repositories per aggregate root and keep the query handle inside them; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.
Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.
Other · Event Sourcing — Whether Apply/When folds reconstruct state purely from the event (no DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random or IO) so replay is reproducible.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords, in this repository's Java: methods that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant or do nothing, dead `if (false)` branches, and skeleton classes most of whose methods are holes.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
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.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 49 of 57 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Only 9/43 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `section1/00_start/accounts`, `section1/00_start/cards`, `section1/00_start/customer`, `section1/00_start/eurekaserver`, `section1/00_start/gatewayserver` and 29 more.
What to do
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) and a health-check endpoint (Spring Boot Actuator's /actuator/health, or a /health route) for operability.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.
Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.
`WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. (×6) — section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19, section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19, section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19, …
What to do
Set connect and read timeouts on every client (`RestTemplateBuilder.connectTimeout/readTimeout`, WebClient `responseTimeout`, `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout`, `HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout`, Feign `connectTimeout`/`readTimeout` in configuration), and wrap calls to dependencies in resilience4j `@Retry`/`@CircuitBreaker`/`@TimeLimiter` (or Spring Retry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.
Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment. (×29) — REDACTED:17, REDACTED:17, REDACTED:17, …
What to do
Replace Hibernate ddl-auto with Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate` so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture 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.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether an enhanced `for` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is iterating invalidates the fail-fast iterator it is holding, so the next `next()` throws `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. 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.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Whether Java packages are null-marked and not undermined by heavy nullness suppression — a package under `@NullMarked` (or `@NonNullApi`, `@ParametersAreNonnullByDefault`, `@NonNullByDefault`, or a NullAway/Checker Framework configuration naming it) makes an unannotated reference exclude null, and `@SuppressWarnings("NullAway")`, `("nullness")`, `("null")` and `castToNonNull(…)` are what silence it.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
0/511 of this repository's Java package directories are under a non-null default: a `package-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked` (JSpecify) or `@NonNullApi`, `@ParametersAreNonnullByDefault`, `@NonNullByDefault`, `@DefaultQualifier(NonNull.class)`; a `module-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked`; every type in it `@NullMarked`; or a build that runs NullAway with the package in `AnnotatedPackages`, or the Checker Framework's `NullnessChecker`. Elsewhere every reference admits null and no checker warns on the dereference that throws a `NullPointerException`.
What to do
Declare the default where Java declares it: `@NullMarked` (org.jspecify.annotations) in each package's `package-info.java`, or once in `module-info.java`, and run NullAway (Error Prone) or the Checker Framework so the declaration is enforced. Then annotate the real exceptions `@Nullable` and resolve the suppressions rather than adding to them: a `@SuppressWarnings("NullAway")` or `castToNonNull(x)` on a value the checker could show to be null is a `NullPointerException` waiting for the path that makes it true — where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (a null check, `Objects.requireNonNull`, a non-null field initialised in the constructor).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not evidenced — 6 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 57 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
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
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
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .java suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 57 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 0 dependency(ies) and leaving 297 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — JVM licences not graded — no declared coordinate carries a version the manifest itself resolves
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.java), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
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.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
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 included — suite not readable by the collector
DM12 Ambient inputs in the domain — no domain-layer types detected — ambient-input check not applicable
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — no domain-layer types detected — domain↔infrastructure boundary check not applicable
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (17 event handler(s))
ED5 Idempotency — Not assessed, and this one is on us: 17 command handler(s) or message consumer(s) were found here, but this check does not yet recognise persistence writes in this repository's language. Idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out — this is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES2 Immutable events — no persisted event types detected — immutability check not applicable
ES3 PII in the event store — no persisted event types detected — PII-in-events check not applicable
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a REDACTED, Gradle or sbt build, 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: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java code has 23,418 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — 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
X13 Undrained process stream — 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
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter
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.
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.
D10 · Test Quality· No assertions (empty test) · ×8
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section5/cards/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section5/customer/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/customer/AccountsApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/eazy-bom/common/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/common/CommonApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/eurekaserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/eurekaserver/EurekaserverApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section6/gatewayserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section6/loans/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads section4/profile/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/profile/ProfileApplicationTests.java:10— Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
Anemic entity: Loans section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15— `Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Customer section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12— `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Cards section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15— `Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Accounts section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13— `Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Loans section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15— `Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Customer section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12— `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Cards section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15— `Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Accounts section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13— `Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Loans section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15— `Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Customer section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12— `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Cards section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15— `Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Accounts section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13— `Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Profile section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/entity/Profile.java:12— `Profile` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Loans section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15— `Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Customer section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12— `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Cards section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15— `Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Accounts section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13— `Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Loans section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15— `Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Customer section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12— `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Cards section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15— `Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Accounts section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13— `Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Loans section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/entity/Loans.java:15— `Loans` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Customer section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/entity/Customer.java:12— `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Cards section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/entity/Cards.java:15— `Cards` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Accounts section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/entity/Accounts.java:13— `Accounts` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
+ 4 more in this group — see findings.md.
P8 · Schema migrations· Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) · ×29
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto (no migration path) REDACTED:17— Hibernate ddl-auto builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt Flyway or Liquibase, with `ddl-auto` set to `validate`, so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×16
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:32— REDACTED:32-42 | REDACTED:32-42 | REDACTED:32-42 | REDACTED:32-42 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:45— REDACTED:45-54 | REDACTED:45-54 | REDACTED:45-54 | REDACTED:45-54 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:57— REDACTED:57-64 | REDACTED:57-64 | REDACTED:57-64 | REDACTED:57-64 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:55— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:55-62 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:58-65 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:55-62 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:55-62 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:39— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:39-47 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:43-51 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:44-52 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:39-47 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:36— REDACTED:36-47 | REDACTED:36-47 | REDACTED:36-47 | REDACTED:36-47 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:50— REDACTED:50-60 | REDACTED:50-60 | REDACTED:50-60 | REDACTED:50-60 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:63— REDACTED:63-70 | REDACTED:63-70 | REDACTED:63-70 | REDACTED:63-70 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:53— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:53-60 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:56-63 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:53-60 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:53-60 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:30— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:30-39 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:30-39 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:41-50 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:30-39 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:42— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:42-50 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:42-50 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:53-61 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:42-50 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:44— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:44-53 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:48-57 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:46-55 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:44-53 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:47— REDACTED:47-58 | REDACTED:47-58 | REDACTED:47-58 | REDACTED:47-58 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:67— REDACTED:67-77 | REDACTED:67-77 | REDACTED:67-77 | REDACTED:67-77 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:86— REDACTED:86-93 | REDACTED:86-93 | REDACTED:86-93 | REDACTED:86-93 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:54— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:54-61 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:57-64 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:54-61 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:54-61 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) REDACTED:47— REDACTED:47-54 | REDACTED:47-54 | REDACTED:47-54 | REDACTED:47-54 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:47` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:46— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:46` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:40— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:40-47 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:44-51 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:45-52 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:40-47 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) REDACTED:53— REDACTED:53-60 | REDACTED:53-60 | REDACTED:53-60 | REDACTED:53-60 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 98% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:53` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:46— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:46` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:45— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:45-52 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:45-52 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:45-52 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:45-52 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:45` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) REDACTED:70— REDACTED:70-77 | REDACTED:70-77 | REDACTED:70-77 | REDACTED:70-77 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:70` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:46— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:46-53 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:46` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:28— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:28-35 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:31-38 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:28-35 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:28-35 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:27— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:27-34 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:30-37 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:27-34 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:27-34 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:27— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:27-34 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:30-37 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:27-34 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:27-34 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:32— section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:32-39 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:33-40 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:40-47 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:38-45 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `createCommand` to `CreateAccountCommand` in one and `CreateCardCommand` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:51— section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:51-58 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:54-61 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:59-66 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:60-67 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `updateCommand` to `UpdateAccountCommand` in one and `UpdateCardCommand` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium CVE · ×12
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) REDACTED:58— REDACTED:58-64 | REDACTED:58-64 | REDACTED:58-64 | REDACTED:58-64 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:56— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:56-62 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:59-65 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:56-62 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:56-62 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) REDACTED:64— REDACTED:64-70 | REDACTED:64-70 | REDACTED:64-70 | REDACTED:64-70 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 98% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:54— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:54-60 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:57-63 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:54-60 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:54-60 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:33— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:33-39 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:33-39 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:44-50 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:33-39 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:33` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) REDACTED:87— REDACTED:87-93 | REDACTED:87-93 | REDACTED:87-93 | REDACTED:87-93 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:55— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:55-61 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:58-64 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:55-61 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:55-61 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:28— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:28-34 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:28-34 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:28-34 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:28-34 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:55— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:55-61 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:55-61 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:66-72 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:55-61 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:55` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:41— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:41-47 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:44-50 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:41-47 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:41-47 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D10 · Test Quality· Test project verifies nothing · ×8
Test project verifies nothing: section4/accounts section4/accounts/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section4/accounts` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: section4/eazy-bom/common section4/eazy-bom/common/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/common/CommonApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section4/eazy-bom/common` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: section4/eurekaserver section4/eurekaserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/eurekaserver/EurekaserverApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section4/eurekaserver` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: section5/cards section5/cards/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section5/cards` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: section5/customer section5/customer/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/customer/AccountsApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section5/customer` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: section6/gatewayserver section6/gatewayserver/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section6/gatewayserver` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: section6/loans section6/loans/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `section6/loans` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: profile section4/profile/src/test/java/com/eazybytes/profile/ProfileApplicationTests.java:10— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `profile` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) REDACTED:70— REDACTED:70-76 | REDACTED:70-76 | REDACTED:77-83 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) REDACTED:71— REDACTED:71-77 | REDACTED:71-77 | REDACTED:78-84 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) REDACTED:71— REDACTED:71-77 | REDACTED:71-77 | REDACTED:78-84 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:28— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:28-34 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:28-34 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:29-35 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:45— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:45-51 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:45-51 | REDACTED:52-58 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:79— section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:79-85 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:77-83 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:78-84 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `ResourceNotFoundException` names `com.eazybytes.accounts.exception.ResourceNotFoundException` in one and `com.eazybytes.cards.exception.ResourceNotFoundException` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Outbound HTTP without resilience section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19— `WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19— `WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19— `WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19— `WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19— `WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:19— `WebClient.builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:8— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:8-15 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:8-15 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-16 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-16 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:8-15 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-16 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-16 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:8— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:8-17 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:8-17 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-18 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-18 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:8-17 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-18 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-18 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:8— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:8-15 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:8-15 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-16 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-16 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:8-15 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-16 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-16 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:17— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:17-26 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:17-26 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-27 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-27 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:17-26 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-27 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-27 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:8— section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:8-17 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:8-17 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-18 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-18 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:8-17 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-18 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-18 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:49— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:49-60 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:49-60 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:49-60 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java` and `section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:65— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:65-76 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:65-76 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:65-76 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java` and `section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:46— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:46-57 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:46-57 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:47-58 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:50— section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:50-61 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:50-61 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:50-61 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java` and `section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:66— section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:66-77 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:66-77 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:66-77 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java` and `section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
DM7 · Repository granularity· Repository for a non-root entity · ×5
Repository for a non-root entity: LoansRepository → Loans section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/repository/LoansRepository.java:10— `LoansRepository` is a repository over `Loans`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Loans` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: CustomerRepository → Customer section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/repository/CustomerRepository.java:10— `CustomerRepository` is a repository over `Customer`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Customer` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: CardsRepository → Cards section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/repository/CardsRepository.java:10— `CardsRepository` is a repository over `Cards`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Cards` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: AccountsRepository → Accounts section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/repository/AccountsRepository.java:10— `AccountsRepository` is a repository over `Accounts`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Accounts` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: ProfileRepository → Profile section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/repository/ProfileRepository.java:10— `ProfileRepository` is a repository over `Profile`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Profile` through its owning aggregate instead.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) · ×4
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:30— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 20 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:30— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 20 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:29— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:29-52 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:29-52 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:29-52 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:29-52 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 20 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:30— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:30-53 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 20 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:31— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/interceptor/AccountsCommandInterceptor.java:31` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:31— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/interceptor/CardCommandInterceptor.java:31` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:30— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:30-41 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:30-41 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:30-41 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:30-41 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/interceptor/CustomerCommandInterceptor.java:30` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:31— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:31-42 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/interceptor/LoanCommandInterceptor.java:31` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:50— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:50-60 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:50-60 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:50-60 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java` and `section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:65— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:65-75 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:65-75 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:65-75 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java` and `section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) REDACTED:41— REDACTED:41-51 | REDACTED:41-51 | REDACTED:48-58 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) REDACTED:41— REDACTED:41-51 | REDACTED:41-51 | REDACTED:48-58 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-17 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-17 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:10-18 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:10-18 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:9-17 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:10-18 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:10-18 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-26 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-26 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:19-27 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:19-27 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:18-26 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:19-27 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:19-27 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35— section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35-43 | section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35-43 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35-43 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:40-48 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35-43 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35-43 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35-43 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java` and `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:35` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9— section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-17 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-17 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:10-18 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:10-18 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:9-17 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:10-18 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:10-18 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:38— REDACTED:38-45 | REDACTED:65-72 | REDACTED:92-99 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:38` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `event` to `CusMobNumUpdatedEvent` in one and `AccntMobileNumUpdatedEvent` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:27— REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:34-41 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:27— REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:34-41 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) REDACTED:27— REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:27-34 | REDACTED:34-41 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-15 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-15 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:10-16 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:10-16 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:9-15 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:10-16 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java:10-16 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/mapper/AccountsMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-15 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-15 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:10-16 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:10-16 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:9-15 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:10-16 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java:10-16 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/mapper/CustomerMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) REDACTED:56— REDACTED:56-62 | REDACTED:56-62 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:42-48 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:45-51 | REDACTED:63-69 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:42-48 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:42-48 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:19— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:19-25 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:19-25 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:20-26 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:20-26 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:19-25 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:20-26 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java:20-26 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/mapper/CardsMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java:1— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java:1-30 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java:1-33 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java:1-33 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java:1-39 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java` as WHOLE FILES: 90% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/AccountsApplication.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java:1— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java:1-30 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java:1-33 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java:1-33 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java:1-39 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java` as WHOLE FILES: 90% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/CardsApplication.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java:1— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java:1-30 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java:1-33 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java:1-33 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java:1-39 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/CustomersApplication.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java:1— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java:1-30 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java:1-33 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java:1-33 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java:1-39 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/LoansApplication.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:32— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:32-37 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:32-37 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:32-37 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java` and `section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/controller/AccountsController.java:32` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:33— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:33-38 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:33-38 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:33-38 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java` and `section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/controller/CardsController.java:33` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:33— section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:33-38 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:33-38 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:33-38 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java` and `section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/controller/LoansController.java:33` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) REDACTED:58— REDACTED:58-63 | REDACTED:58-63 | REDACTED:65-70 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Low cohesion: CustomerAggregate (LCOM4 5) section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:31— CustomerAggregate's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CardAggregate (LCOM4 5) section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:21— CardAggregate's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: AccountsAggregate (LCOM4 5) section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:23— AccountsAggregate's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: LoanAggregate (LCOM4 4) section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:21— LoanAggregate's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java:1— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java:1-36 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java:1-36 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java:1-49 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java:1-36 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/projection/AccountProjection.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java:1— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java:1-36 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java:1-36 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java:1-48 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java:1-36 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/projection/CardProjection.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java:1— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java:1-36 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java:1-36 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java:1-43 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java:1-36 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/projection/LoanProjection.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 6) REDACTED:83— REDACTED:83-90 | REDACTED:83-90 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:69-76 | REDACTED:90-97 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:69-76 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/service/impl/AccountsServiceImpl.java:69-76 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 6) REDACTED:84— REDACTED:84-91 | REDACTED:84-91 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:67-74 | REDACTED:91-98 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:67-74 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:67-74 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 6) REDACTED:84— REDACTED:84-91 | REDACTED:84-91 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:68-75 | REDACTED:91-98 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:68-75 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/service/impl/LoansServiceImpl.java:68-75 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:45— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:45-57 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:62-75 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:45-57 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:62-75 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:46-58 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:63-76 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20— section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20-40 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20-40 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20-40 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20-40 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20-40 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:20-40 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) REDACTED:37— REDACTED:37-47 | REDACTED:37-47 | REDACTED:37-47 | REDACTED:37-47 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 98% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) REDACTED:48— REDACTED:48-58 | REDACTED:48-58 | REDACTED:48-58 | REDACTED:48-58 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java:1— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java:1-31 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java:1-31 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java:1-31 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java:1-31 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/query/controller/CardQueryController.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java:1— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java:1-31 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java:1-31 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java:1-31 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java:1-31 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/query/controller/LoanQueryController.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 29) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:66-74 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:66-74 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52-60 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:66-74 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:66-74 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` and `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:52` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 29) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:78-86 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:78-86 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:65-73 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64-72 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:78-86 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:78-86 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:77-85 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` and `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:64` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `exception` to `AccountAlreadyExistsException` in one and `CardAlreadyExistsException` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:57— section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:57-62 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:64-69 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:62-67 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java:57-62 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java` and `section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/command/aggregate/CardAggregate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:63— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:63-68 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:70-75 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:65-70 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:63-68 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 21 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 21 shared lines) section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19— section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-43 | section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-43 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-43 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-48 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-43 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-43 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:19-43 — These 7 members are variants of one another: a block of 21 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (29 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (29 members, 50+ identical tokens) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:26-36 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-37 — These 29 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 29 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 29 times.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 6) section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25— section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25-40 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25-40 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25-40 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25-40 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25-40 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25-40 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java` and `section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/handler/CustomerCompositeHandler.java:25` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:63— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:63-75 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:63-75 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:64-76 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 7) section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20— section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 | section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20-31 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java` and `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/GatewayserverApplication.java:20` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 29) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:27-36 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:28-37 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` and `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) REDACTED:33— REDACTED:33-42 | REDACTED:33-42 | REDACTED:33-42 | REDACTED:33-42 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:24— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:24-33 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:24-33 | REDACTED:31-40 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:77— REDACTED:77-86 | REDACTED:105-114 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:77` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 6) section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:47— section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:47-54 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:64-72 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:47-54 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:64-72 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:48-55 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:65-73 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` and `section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/controller/CustomerController.java:47` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:45— section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:45-53 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:49-57 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:47-55 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java:45-53 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java` and `section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/command/aggregate/LoanAggregate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) REDACTED:41— REDACTED:41-49 | REDACTED:41-49 | REDACTED:48-56 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:46— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:46-50 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:46-50 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:57-61 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:46-50 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/controller/CustomerCommandController.java:46` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 6) section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1— section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1-23 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1-23 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1-23 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1-23 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1-23 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1-23 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java` and `section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/config/ClientConfig.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 6) section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1— section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1-21 | section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1-21 | section4/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1-21 | section5/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1-21 | section6/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1-21 | section7/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1-21 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java` and `section3/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/01_end/gatewayserver/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/gatewayserver/router/CustomerCompositeRouter.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (43 lines × 3) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:27— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:27-69 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:33-100 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java:27-69 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java` and `section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/command/aggregate/AccountsAggregate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (32 lines × 4) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java:1— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java:1-32 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java:1-32 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java:1-32 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java:1-32 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java` and `section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/query/controller/AccountsQueryController.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (44 lines × 3) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:34— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:34-87 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:41-109 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java:34-77 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java` and `section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/command/aggregate/CustomerAggregate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (34 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java:1— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java:1-34 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java:1-34 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java:1-34 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java:1-34 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/controller/CustomerQueryController.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (37 lines × 4) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java:1— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java:1-37 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java:1-37 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java:1-48 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java:1-37 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java` and `section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/query/projection/CustomerProjection.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (60 lines × 3) section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:1— section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:1-60 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:1-69 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:1-60 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java` and `section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/service/impl/CustomerServiceImpl.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) REDACTED:1— REDACTED:1-29 | REDACTED:1-29 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 22) section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40— section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section1/01_end/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section1/01_end/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section5/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section5/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-48 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-49 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` and `section1/00_start/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 7) section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40— section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-49 | section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-49 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-50 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-50 | section5/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40-49 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-50 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:41-50 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` and `section1/01_end/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section1/00_start/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:40` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) REDACTED:58— REDACTED:58-63 | REDACTED:58-63 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:41-46 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:44-49 | REDACTED:65-70 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:41-46 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/service/impl/CardsServiceImpl.java:41-46 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 11) section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:19— section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:19-25 | section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:19-25 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:20-26 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:28-34 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:20-26 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:28-34 | section5/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:19-25 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:20-26 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:28-34 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:20-26 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java:28-34 — before extracting anything, compare `section1/00_start/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java` and `section1/01_end/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/mapper/LoansMapper.java` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 17) section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53— section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:54-62 | section3/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section3/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section4/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section4/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:54-62 | section4/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section4/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section4/profile/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/profile/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section6/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section6/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:54-62 | section6/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section6/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section7/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section7/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:54-62 | section7/customer/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/customer/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 | section7/loans/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/loans/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53-61 — before extracting anything, compare `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` and `section3/cards/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/cards/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `section3/accounts/src/main/java/com/eazybytes/accounts/exception/GlobalExceptionHandler.java:53` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) REDACTED:120— REDACTED:120-124 | REDACTED:126-130 | REDACTED:120-124 | REDACTED:126-130 | REDACTED:84-88 | REDACTED:121-125 | REDACTED:127-131 — there are 7 copies across 4 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 7 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
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/`.
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.
Logging is not universal — Only 9/43 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `section1/00_start/accounts`, `section1/00_start/cards`, `section1/00_start/customer`, `section1/00_start/eurekaserver`, `section1/00_start/gatewayserver` and 29 more.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
X5 · Nullable reference types· Java packages are not null-marked everywhere · ×1
Java packages are not null-marked everywhere — 0/511 of this repository's Java package directories are under a non-null default: a `package-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked` (JSpecify) or `@NonNullApi`, `@ParametersAreNonnullByDefault`, `@NonNullByDefault`, `@DefaultQualifier(NonNull.class)`; a `module-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked`; every type in it `@NullMarked`; or a build that runs NullAway with the package in `AnnotatedPackages`, or the Checker Framework's `NullnessChecker`. Elsewhere every reference admits null and no checker warns on the dereference that throws a `NullPointerException`.
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.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a1606e-967d-7926-875b-5b14e904ff50 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 75 · Warnings: 260 · Recommendations: 9 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 21:47 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.