Public report of fslaborg/XPlot, published 23 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, 23 October 2026, 21:16 UTC · Survey ID cd_e57be4a7e14d4340bc6c43d392ce394f
fslaborg/XPlot
Measured 23 October 2026, 21:13 UTC, at code version 23bac6e
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Code coverage is not measured: No coverage collector is wired up.
Test reliability is not measured: No test run produced results.
Bus factor is not measured: No living knowledge left to concentrate.
Supply-chain provenance & signing is not measured: Supply-chain provenance is not scored (this pipeline releases no artifact), but its build steps or GitHub Actions workflows have integrity defects, or nothing watches its dependency set for published advisories.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
No change 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: 10,402 lines of product code in 8 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.1 person-years · Weakest lens: Maturity, 41
Findings by how serious they are
8 critical152 serious55 minor
33 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
23 October 2026, 21:13 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.
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 ▸
41of 44 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.
203of 215 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 12 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
44dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 10,402 lines of product code in 8 projects.
fslaborg/XPlot scores 50 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 92, rated Exemplary, Code Health and Security and Compliance at 86, both rated Strong, and Production Readiness at 55, rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 41 and is rated Weak. Its Knowledge Freshness dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 42 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 50 to about 57.
Eight findings are critical: five in IaC & Container Security, two in Static Analysis (SAST) and one in Text alternatives.
Watchdog couldn't measure 32 dimensions in this code, among them Dependency Hygiene, Explicit Debt and Documentation Quality, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 10,402 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €15,000, 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.
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: 1 finding
This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €15,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€4,900 to €25,000, for 82 to 260 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, 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 50. 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: 10,402 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 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 9 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Resolve the 42 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Program.fs (2), Main.fs (2), Yaxis.fs.
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.
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 €15,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 41 (Weak). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 9 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR 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 — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
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.
15 modules, with 7 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 2 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.
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.
XPlot.D3.Configuration uses XPlot.D3, so a change to XPlot.D3 can break XPlot.D3.Configuration, while a change to XPlot.D3.Configuration can't break XPlot.D3.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
XPlot.GoogleCharts uses XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration, so a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration can break XPlot.GoogleCharts, while a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts can't break XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration.
Position
Below the diagonal: XPlot.GoogleCharts uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
XPlot.GoogleCharts uses XPlot.GoogleCharts.Data, so a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts.Data can break XPlot.GoogleCharts, while a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts can't break XPlot.GoogleCharts.Data.
Position
Below the diagonal: XPlot.GoogleCharts uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
XPlot.Plotly uses XPlot.Plotly.Layout, so a change to XPlot.Plotly.Layout can break XPlot.Plotly, while a change to XPlot.Plotly can't break XPlot.Plotly.Layout.
Position
Below the diagonal: XPlot.Plotly uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
XPlot.D3 uses XPlot.D3.Configuration, so a change to XPlot.D3.Configuration can break XPlot.D3, while a change to XPlot.D3 can't break XPlot.D3.Configuration.
Position
Below the diagonal: XPlot.D3 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle uses XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration, so a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration can break XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle, while a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle can't break XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration.
Position
Below the diagonal: XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle uses XPlot.GoogleCharts, so a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts can break XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle, while a change to XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle can't break XPlot.GoogleCharts.
Position
Below the diagonal: XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
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
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration
12
High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by addressing the lack of architectural decision records to ensure significant design choices are documented and accessible. Simultaneously, resolve the 42 orphaned files in the codebase, prioritizing Program.fs, Main.fs, and Yaxis, to improve knowledge freshness. Finally, enhance accessibility by adding text alternatives to media elements and update the root README with a clear quick-start guide for new contributors.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
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 text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Code Duplication: Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 18 shared lines)
src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs
7.4
Mixed
Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens)
src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs
7.4
Mixed
Code Duplication: Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)
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 — 8
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 — 152
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 — 55
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 33
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. 41 of 44 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 0.8 — 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 — 44 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, 203 of 215 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.
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 reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
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. The NuGet registry this repository's packages resolve from could not be reached on this run, so no outdated, vulnerable or deprecated package could be read. The tool said: Unable to load the service index for source https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/dnceng/public/_packaging/dotnet-eng/nuget/v3/index.json. The proxy tunnel request to proxy 'http://egress:3128/' failed with status code '403'.. This is OUR side and an ENVIRONMENT fault — the collector exists and ran — so the remedy is the scan's network path to pkgs.dev.azure.com, and a re-run with it reachable measures this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 45 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 3 of the 76 production source files in this repository: 31 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 42 have no attributable history left to measure.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit:
https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
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.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
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").
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
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 REDACTED (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.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D21, D22, 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.
Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Data.makeDataTable (cyclomatic 17). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.8 to about 10.0/10.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Data.makeDataTable (cognitive 32). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.1 to about 10.0/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Configuration.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with Deedle.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Main.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: 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.
121 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 12 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 77 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Program.fs (2), Main.fs, Countor.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Layout.fs (2), Annotation.fs (2), Colorbar.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Configuration.fs (2), Box.fs, Mesh3D.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — 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.
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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 222 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 5 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 217 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
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: 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.
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.
3 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 266 exposed types.
Redundant HTML/JS extraction methods with ambiguous naming. `GetHtml()` and `GetInlineHtml()` are semantically unclear. Typically, 'Inline' implies embedding JS/CSS directly, while 'Page' implies a full HTML document. However, `GetHtml()` likely returns a full page or an iframe src, while `GetInlineHtml()` might return just the chart div. The distinction between `GetHtml` and `GetInlineHtml` is not obvious from the names alone, and `GetInlineJS` is a very specific subset that might be better served by a single `Render` method returning a structured object or distinct `RenderAsHtml()` vs `RenderAsIframe()`. More critically, `ForceLayoutChart` and `GoogleChart` have identical method names for these outputs, which is good, but the internal semantics of 'Html' vs 'InlineHtml' are likely duplicated/confusing across both backends.
Inconsistent dimension setting APIs. `ForceLayoutChart` requires separate `WithWidth` and `WithHeight` calls. `GoogleChart` has both separate `WithWidth`/`WithHeight` AND a combined `WithSize`. This creates confusion for users migrating between chart types or choosing which method to use on `GoogleChart`. Furthermore, `ForceLayoutChart` lacks `WithSize`, making it inconsistent with the more convenient `GoogleChart` API.
Duplicate creation paths for ForceLayoutChart. Users can create a `ForceLayoutChart` via `Chart.ForceLayout(...)`, `Chart.Create(...)`, or `ForceLayoutChart.Create(...)`. This is confusing redundancy. `Chart.Create` and `Chart.ForceLayout` appear to do the same thing (create a force layout chart), and `ForceLayoutChart.Create` is a static factory that duplicates the functionality of the static `Chart` methods.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Redundant HTML/JS extraction methods with ambiguous naming. `GetHtml()`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent dimension setting APIs. `ForceLayoutChart` requires… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicate creation paths for ForceLayoutChart. Users can create a… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
91 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
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).
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 2 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `docs/_template.ipynb` — so no absence of findings in them is evidence of anything, and nothing in them was analysed. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
REDACTED
What to do
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Resolve the 5 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
45 of 45 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs. Counted over 45 of the 76 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Most significant orphaned file · ×3src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 42 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Program.fs (2), Main.fs (2), Yaxis.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (42 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Configuration.fs, Main.fs, Deedle.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.
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 8 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC1 · Text alternatives1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.
An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. — packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/templates/_template.html:37
What to do
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/templates/_template.html:2
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
`#fsdocs-content table.pre pre` sets color: #837b79 on background-color: #fff7ed — 3.9:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/extras/content/fsdocs-default.css:353
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue in this repository's F#: bindings whose whole body still raises a "not implemented" error (NotImplementedException, failwith "not implemented"), and placeholder text (lorem ipsum, changeme/replace_me…) left in string literals of non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
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.
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.
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 `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 553 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — markup this repository SHIPS is scored for third-party script integrity whether or not the repository serves it itself, since a page handed to a consumer runs in that consumer’s origin. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.
`https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.1.min.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 4 such include(s) across the repository's markup. — packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/templates/_template.html:11
What to do
Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.
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 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?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `for … in` loop leaves the mutable .NET collection it is walking alone — F#'s own lists, arrays, maps and sets cannot be changed by a loop body, but a `ResizeArray`, `Dictionary`, `Queue` or other BCL collection walked by `for x in c do` is walked through its enumerator, so a body that adds to or removes from `c` makes the next `MoveNext` throw `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items 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?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 13 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (24%; ≈26% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 42 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 70 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.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's F# imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No F# function in this code takes an ASP.NET Core or Suave HttpContext (a Giraffe, Saturn, Falco, Oxpecker or Suave handler) and no F# class is an ASP.NET Core controller, so no request handler shares module state between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit:
https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — 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.
D10 Test Quality — ~5310 lines of test source are present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — pkgs.dev.azure.com could not be reached
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution; this repository's .NET projects are all F# (.fsproj), which the C#/VB workspace does not load, so the dimension does not apply.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
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.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (7 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, F# source (6 module(s), 74 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a package.json, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: 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 F# code has 12,654 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.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
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 — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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.
AC1 · Text alternatives· <img> without a text alternative · ×1
<img> without a text alternative packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/templates/_template.html:37— An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:69— src/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:69-76 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:337-345 — 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 `src/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:69` 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 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:35— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:35-42 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:45-52 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 378 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:19— tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:19-26 | tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:44-51 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:101— tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:101-108 | tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:236-243 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:67— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:67-74 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:74-81 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:73` calls `ShouldSerializeorientation` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:66` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:180— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:180-187 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:238-245 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:15— src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:32-37 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:32-37 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 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 5 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:13— src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:13-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Legend.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:22-27 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 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 5 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:14— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:38-43 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:39-44 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:20— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:33-38 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:27-32 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:33-38 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:27— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:27-32 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Legend.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:28-33 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:254— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:254-259 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:217-222 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:274-279 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:296-301 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:171-176 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 27 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 359 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:180— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:180-186 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:736-742 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1018— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1018-1024 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1087-1093 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:19— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:19-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:16-22 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 96 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:30— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:30-36 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:26-32 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:279— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:279-285 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:331-337 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 378 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:192— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:192-197 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:213-218 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:249-254 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:327-332 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:14— src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:31-36 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Legend.fs:10-15 — 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:22— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:21-26 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:4— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:4-9 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:10-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:11-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:17-22 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:20— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:34-39 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:32-37 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:28-33 — 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1365— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1365-1370 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1388-1393 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:100— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:100-105 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:155-160 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:25— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:33-38 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 149 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:18— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:18-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:14-19 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:225— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:225-230 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:173-178 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 17 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 229 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:4— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:4-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Outsidetextfont.fs:4-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Tickfont.fs:4-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Titlefont.fs:4-23 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Outsidetextfont.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% 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. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:132— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:132-151 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:185-204 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:168-187 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:135-154 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:206— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:206-225 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:181-200 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:238-257 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:260-279 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 27 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 359 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:54— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:54-65 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:113-124 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:123-137 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:149-160 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:68— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:68-79 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:156-167 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:209-223 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:197-208 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:224` calls `get` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:79` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:167— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:167-181 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:187-201 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:158-169 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:132-143 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:182` calls `get` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:169` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:119— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:119-128 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:997-1006 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:588— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:588-597 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1566-1575 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:608— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:608-617 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:849-858 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:10— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:10-17 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:6-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs:6-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:11-18 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:11— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:11-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:11-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:11-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:11-18 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:27— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:27-34 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:27-34 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:27-34 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:27-34 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 27 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 359 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 9) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:23— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:17-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:29-34 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:18-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:30-35 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:24-29 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:36-41 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:15-20 — there are 9 copies across 6 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 9 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 9) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:6— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:6-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:6-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:6-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:10-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:16-21 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 136 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 9) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:14— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:17-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:14-19 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:24— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:24-29 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:60-65 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:133-138 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:270-275 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:356-361 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:392-397 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:428-433 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:6— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:6-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:16-21 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 7 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 7 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Shape.fs:7— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Shape.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:16-21 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:19— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:20-25 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 27 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 359 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:20— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:13-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:41-46 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:42-47 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:20-25 — there are 6 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 6 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:7— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:17-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:14-19 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:95— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:95-123 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:105-133 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:187— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:187-215 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:241-269 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 30 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 378 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 8) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:74— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:74-88 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:93-107 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:86-100 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:84-98 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:96-110 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:100-114 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:82-96 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:73-87 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 178 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 8) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:89— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:89-103 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:108-122 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:101-115 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:99-113 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:111-125 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:115-129 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:97-111 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:88-102 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 178 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:119— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:119-133 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Textfont.fs:25-36 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:139— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:139-150 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:153-167 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:168` calls `get` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:150` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:53— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:53-66 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:59-72 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:73` calls `ShouldSerializeorientation` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:67` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:39— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:39-52 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:40-53 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:108— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:108-120 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:982-994 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:13— tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:13-25 | tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:31-43 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:547— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:547-558 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:964-975 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:976` calls `ShouldSerializefillOpacity` and `src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:559` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:126— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:126-137 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:116-127 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 17 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 229 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:4— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:4-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs:4-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Z.fs:4-12 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:25— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:25-33 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:36-44 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:36-44 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 9) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:37— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:37-44 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:73-80 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:146-153 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:169-176 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:226-233 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:283-290 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:369-376 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:405-412 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:441-448 — all 9 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 9) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:15— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:15-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:15-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:15-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:14-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Margin.fs:6-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:9-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs:9-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Z.fs:9-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:47-54 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 136 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:23` calls `get` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:22` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 17) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:8— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:9-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:8-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:8-14 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 17) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:78— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:78-84 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:166-172 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:150-156 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:103-109 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:149-155 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:247-253 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:210-216 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:224-230 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:267-273 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:289-295 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:206-212 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:182-188 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:211-217 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:168-174 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:142-148 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:159-165 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:164-170 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:18— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:18-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:11-17 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:12-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:18-24 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:25— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:25-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:19-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:20-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:26-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:25— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:25-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:34-40 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:31-37 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:188— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:188-194 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:255-261 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:239-245 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:246` calls `ShouldSerializetextpositionsrc` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:195` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 11) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:7— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:10-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:27-32 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:19-24 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 11) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:24— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:24-29 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:11-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:18-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:30-35 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:31-36 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:37-42 — there are 11 copies across 8 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 11 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:22— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:4-9 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Shape.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:17-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:17-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:24-29 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:14-19 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 10 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 10 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:5— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:18-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:15-20 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 136 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:16— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:19-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:18-23 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 8 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 8 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:4— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:4-9 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:4-9 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:4-9 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:21-26 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 136 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5–6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:349— src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:349-353 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:397-402 — 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 `src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:349` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (5–6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:417— src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:417-422 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:443-447 — 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 `src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:417` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
AC3 · Page structure· Page without a main landmark · ×1
Page without a main landmark packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/templates/_template.html:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (3.9:1) packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/extras/content/fsdocs-default.css:353— `#fsdocs-content table.pre pre` sets color: #837b79 on background-color: #fff7ed — 3.9:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
AC7 · A11y enforcement· Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
Data.makeDataTable (cyclomatic 17) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:63— Data.makeDataTable has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Data.makeDataTable (cognitive 32) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:63— Data.makeDataTable has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (22 pts), match/switch 5 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 17). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Redundant HTML/JS extraction methods with ambiguous naming. `GetHtml()` and `GetInlineHtml()` are semantically unclear. Typically, 'Inline' implies embedding JS/CSS directly, while 'Page' implies a full HTML document. However, `GetHtml()` likely returns a full page or an iframe src, while `GetInlineHtml()` might return just the chart div. The distinction between `GetHtml` and `GetInlineHtml` is not obvious from the names alone, and `GetInlineJS` is a very specific subset that might be better served by a single `Render` method returning a structured object or distinct `RenderAsHtml()` vs `RenderAsIframe()`. More critically, `ForceLayoutChart` and `GoogleChart` have identical method names for these outputs, which is good, but the internal semantics of 'Html' vs 'InlineHtml' are likely duplicated/confusing across both backends. · ×1
Redundant HTML/JS extraction methods with ambiguous naming. `GetHtml()` and `GetInlineHtml()` are semantically unclear. Typically, 'Inline' implies embedding JS/CSS directly, while 'Page' implies a full HTML document. However, `GetHtml()` likely returns a full page or an iframe src, while `GetInlineHtml()` might return just the chart div. The distinction between `GetHtml` and `GetInlineHtml` is not obvious from the names alone, and `GetInlineJS` is a very specific subset that might be better served by a single `Render` method returning a structured object or distinct `RenderAsHtml()` vs `RenderAsIframe()`. More critically, `ForceLayoutChart` and `GoogleChart` have identical method names for these outputs, which is good, but the internal semantics of 'Html' vs 'InlineHtml' are likely duplicated/confusing across both backends. — Unify naming to clearly distinguish between a full HTML document, an HTML snippet (div+script), and raw JS. For example: `RenderAsHtmlDocument()`, `RenderAsHtmlSnippet()`, `RenderAsJavaScript()`. Or, if `GetHtml` is the primary output, remove `GetInlineHtml` and `GetInlineJS` in favor of a single `Render()` method that returns a record/object containing the necessary parts, or use `ToHtml()` and `ToJavaScript()`. (signatures: ForceLayoutChart.GetHtml(): String | ForceLayoutChart.GetInlineHtml(): String | ForceLayoutChart.GetInlineJS(): String | GoogleChart.GetHtml(): String | GoogleChart.GetInlineHtml(): String | GoogleChart.GetInlineJS(): String)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent dimension setting APIs. `ForceLayoutChart` requires separate `WithWidth` and `WithHeight` calls. `GoogleChart` has both separate `WithWidth`/`WithHeight` AND a combined `WithSize`. This creates confusion for users migrating between chart types or choosing which method to use on `GoogleChart`. Furthermore, `ForceLayoutChart` lacks `WithSize`, making it inconsistent with the more convenient `GoogleChart` API. · ×1
Inconsistent dimension setting APIs. `ForceLayoutChart` requires separate `WithWidth` and `WithHeight` calls. `GoogleChart` has both separate `WithWidth`/`WithHeight` AND a combined `WithSize`. This creates confusion for users migrating between chart types or choosing which method to use on `GoogleChart`. Furthermore, `ForceLayoutChart` lacks `WithSize`, making it inconsistent with the more convenient `GoogleChart` API. — Add `WithSize(width, height)` to `ForceLayoutChart` for consistency with `GoogleChart`. Alternatively, remove `WithSize` from `GoogleChart` to enforce the separate setter pattern, but adding the combined method is generally preferred for convenience. (signatures: ForceLayoutChart.WithHeight(height: Int32): Unit | ForceLayoutChart.WithWidth(width: Int32): Unit | GoogleChart.WithHeight(height: Int32): Unit | GoogleChart.WithWidth(width: Int32): Unit | GoogleChart.WithSize(width: Int32, height: Int32): Unit)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Duplicate creation paths for ForceLayoutChart. Users can create a `ForceLayoutChart` via `Chart.ForceLayout(...)`, `Chart.Create(...)`, or `ForceLayoutChart.Create(...)`. This is confusing redundancy. `Chart.Create` and `Chart.ForceLayout` appear to do the same thing (create a force layout chart), and `ForceLayoutChart.Create` is a static factory that duplicates the functionality of the static `Chart` methods. · ×1
Duplicate creation paths for ForceLayoutChart. Users can create a `ForceLayoutChart` via `Chart.ForceLayout(...)`, `Chart.Create(...)`, or `ForceLayoutChart.Create(...)`. This is confusing redundancy. `Chart.Create` and `Chart.ForceLayout` appear to do the same thing (create a force layout chart), and `ForceLayoutChart.Create` is a static factory that duplicates the functionality of the static `Chart` methods. — Remove `ForceLayoutChart.Create` and `Chart.Create` (if it's overloaded for force layout). Keep only `Chart.ForceLayout` as the canonical entry point for creating force layout charts. Or, if `Chart.Create` is meant to be generic, ensure `Chart.ForceLayout` is an alias or remove one of them. (signatures: Chart.ForceLayout(nodes: IEnumerable`1<Node>): ForceLayoutChart | Chart.Create(nodes: IEnumerable`1<Node>): ForceLayoutChart | ForceLayoutChart.Create(nodes: IEnumerable`1<Node>): ForceLayoutChart)
FileTooLong: XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs— FileTooLong — 1724 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1224 over it, 3.45× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyFunctions: Deedle src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:2— TooManyFunctions — 42 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Chart src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:436— TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (11 members, 66 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (11 members, 66 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1-196 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:1-291 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:1-247 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:1-264 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:1-314 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:1-340 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:1-245 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:1-249 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:1-199 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:1-188 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:1-194 — These 11 members are variants of one another: a block of 66 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 11 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 11 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (10 members, 67 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (10 members, 67 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1-196 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:1-177 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:1-122 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:1-291 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:1-247 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:1-264 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:1-314 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:1-340 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:1-249 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:1-188 — These 10 members are variants of one another: a block of 67 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 10 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 10 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 63 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 63 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:1-176 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:1-291 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:1-247 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:1-314 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:1-340 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:1-245 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:1-194 — These 7 members are variants of one another: a block of 63 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· Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 56 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 56 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1-196 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:1-122 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:1-264 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:1-245 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:1-249 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:1-199 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:1-188 — These 7 members are variants of one another: a block of 56 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· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 74 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 74 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:1-93 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1-196 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:1-264 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:1-249 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 74 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 67 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 67 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:1-215 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:1-249 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:1-199 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:1-168 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 67 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 59 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 59 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:1-122 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:1-264 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:1-168 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:1-194 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 59 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 18 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 18 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:1-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Center.fs:1-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Eye.fs:1-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Up.fs:1-23 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 18 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 15 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 15 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:1-112 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:1-112 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:1-112 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:1-332 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 15 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 pair (304 shared lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:1-378 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:1-379 — These two members are variants of one another: 304 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (45 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (45 corresponding lines) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:1-47 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs:1-47 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 45 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:1— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:1-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Outsidetextfont.fs:1-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Textfont.fs:1-43 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Tickfont.fs:1-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Titlefont.fs:1-23 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' 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 5 times.
Duplicated block (193 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:60— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:60-252 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:61-253 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:85-277 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (85 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:28— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:28-112 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:28-112 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:28-112 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 136 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (51 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:17— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:17-67 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs:17-67 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Z.fs:17-67 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (40–43 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:138— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:138-177 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:199-241 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:203-245 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (41 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:5— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:5-45 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs:5-45 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (40 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:109— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:109-148 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:102-141 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:112-151 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:116-155 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 27 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 359 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (36–39 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:288— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:288-323 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:289-324 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:51-89 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:90— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:90-125 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:138-173 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:131-166 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:141-176 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:145-180 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:88-123 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:69— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:69-99 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:88-118 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:81-111 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:77-107 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:68-98 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 178 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:79— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:79-109 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:91-121 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:95-125 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:156— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:156-180 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:138-162 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 113 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (21–24 lines × 17) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:17— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:17-40 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:32-55 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:30-53 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:21-44 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:29-52 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:46-69 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:39-62 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:42-65 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:49-72 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:53-76 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:41-61 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:35-58 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:40-63 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:33-56 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:28-51 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:31-54 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:32-52 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:114— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:114-135 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:150-171 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 296 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 9) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:142— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:142-160 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:221-236 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:196-211 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:195-213 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:253-268 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:275-290 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:178-196 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:145-160 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:150-165 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 178 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:5— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:5-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Center.fs:5-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Eye.fs:5-23 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Up.fs:5-23 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Center.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% 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. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:90— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:90-108 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:100-118 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:98-116 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 21 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 280 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15–18 lines × 17) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:41— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:41-58 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:56-73 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:54-71 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:45-62 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:53-70 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:70-87 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:63-80 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:66-83 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:73-90 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:77-94 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:64-78 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:59-76 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:64-81 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:57-74 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:52-69 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:55-72 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:55-72 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:148— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:148-165 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:131-148 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 123 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15–18 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:136— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:136-153 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:113-127 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 115 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:30— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:30-46 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:30-46 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 447 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 11) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:141— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:141-155 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:220-234 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:195-209 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:194-208 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:252-266 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:274-288 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:161-175 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:177-191 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:143-157 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:144-158 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:149-163 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 178 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 10) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:131— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:131-145 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:130-144 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:93-104 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:205-219 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:180-194 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:184-198 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:237-251 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:259-273 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:167-181 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:134-148 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 7) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:115— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:115-126 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:163-177 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:156-170 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:166-180 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:170-184 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:138-149 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:113-124 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:277— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:277-291 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:278-292 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:273-284 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:70— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:70-84 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:73-87 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11–14 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Contours.fs:38— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Contours.fs:38-48 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Projection.fs:12-25 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10–13 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:10— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:10-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Outsidetextfont.fs:10-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Textfont.fs:12-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Tickfont.fs:10-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Titlefont.fs:10-19 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Outsidetextfont.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% 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. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:15— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:15-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:15-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:15-27 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 136 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:22— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:22-33 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:23-34 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:29-40 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:144— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:144-154 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:205-215 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:262-272 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:284-294 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:154-164 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:159-169 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 149 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:9— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:9-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Center.fs:8-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Eye.fs:9-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Up.fs:9-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:80-90 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Center.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% 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. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:4— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:4-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:5-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:11-21 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:54— tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:54-62 | tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:88-96 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:18— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:18-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:18-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:18-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:18-24 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:19-25 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 27 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 359 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 34) src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:33— src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:33-38 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:12-17 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:12-17 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:10-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:31-36 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:32-37 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:38-43 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:29-34 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:7-12 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:26— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:26-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:38-43 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:48-53 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 95 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 11) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:22— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:22-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Shape.fs:8-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:16-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:43-47 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:17-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:44-48 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:23-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:17-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:24-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:14-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:14-18 — there are 11 copies across 9 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 11 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:19— tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:19-23 | tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:37-41 | tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:92-96 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:294— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:294-298 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1390-1394 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:360— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:360-375 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:361-376 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 397 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:173— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:173-177 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:110-114 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:231-235 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:213-217 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:218-222 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:175-179 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:166-170 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:165— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:165-171 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:269-275 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:232-238 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:289-295 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:311-317 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:179-185 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:247— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:247-254 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:301-308 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:323-330 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:255` calls `ShouldSerializeerror_y`, `ShouldSerializeerror_x` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:309` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
Third-party script without Subresource Integrity packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/templates/_template.html:11— `https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.1.min.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 4 such include(s) across the repository's markup.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Geo.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Most significant orphaned file · ×3
Most significant orphaned file src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:1— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:1— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
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/`.
Dormant codebase — 45 of 45 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 45 separate risks. Counted over 45 of the 76 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1313— 1 of 6575 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: XPlot.GoogleCharts.Configuration/Options..ctor @ src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1313, 447 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 10.0/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 553 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a16a9c-2fb7-7d9e-884d-73f505f370f8 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 8 · Warnings: 152 · Recommendations: 55 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 21:13 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.