Public report of openzipkin/zipkin, published 24 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 report Measured 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, 24 October 2026, 07:15 UTC · Survey ID cd_8dd1fc3da6e04767badaccf9207597ac

openzipkin/zipkin

Measured 24 October 2026, 07:11 UTC, at code version 878ce2a

Regression: 1 dimension fell since the last survey Code coverage: not measuredTest reliability: not measured

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: JavaScript/TypeScript suite (CouldNotMeasureNoCollector).

Test reliability is not measured: The jvm executor ran against the .java half and did not finish re-running within its tier budget.

CAI score 44out of 100 At risk Down 7 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.

Architecture 97 Exemplary Code Health 84 Strong Performance 82 Strong Security and Compliance 75 Adequate Maturity 55 Adequate Production Readiness 44 Weak Accessibility 28 Weak

A medium codebase: 34,333 lines of product code in 15 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.3 person-years · Weakest lens: Accessibility, 28

Findings by how serious they are

46 critical 300 serious 219 minor

13 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
24 October 2026, 07:11 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

A critical security finding is open, such as a library with a known critical vulnerability or a password or key found in the code. The score itself is unchanged, but its band shows At risk until the finding is fixed. See the Security and Compliance lens.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

82of 85 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.
540of 565 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 25 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
85dimensions across 7 lenses, read from 34,333 lines of product code in 15 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

openzipkin/zipkin scores 44 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Accessibility, which scores 28 and is rated Weak. Its Forms & labels dimension scores 1 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Accessibility can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality, and if Accessibility rose to 70, the score would rise from 44 to about 56.

46 findings are critical: 26 in Static Analysis (SAST), 17 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, one in Page structure, one in Secrets (history) and one in Test Reliability.

Watchdog couldn't measure 12 dimensions in this code, among them Test Distribution, Dependency Hygiene and License Compliance, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 34,333 lines, which would take an estimated 0.3 person-years, around €50,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 84 Strong Architecture 97 ★ Exemplary Maturity 55 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 44 Weak, capped by Dependency Freshness and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 75 Adequate, capped by Dependency Vulnerabilities and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Accessibility 28 Weak, capped by Forms & labels and Visual & motion safety Performance 82 Strong

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 for The 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.
Accessibility 28 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 44 · counts for 25%Maturity 55 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 75 · counts for 8%Performance 82 · counts for 4%Code Health 84 · counts for 2%Architecture 97 · counts for 1%

If Accessibility rose from 28 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 44 to about 56.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 60%Tests 40%
New since the last survey: 17 findings

These 17 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026.

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: 10 findings

These 10 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
  • Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
  • Test Coverage · This test file cannot be loaded zipkin-lens/src/components/App/LanguageSelector.test.tsx
  • Tooling · The declared test suite includes a file that cannot be loaded zipkin-lens/src/components/App/LanguageSelector.test.tsx
Rebuild cost: about €50,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€17,000 to €83,000, for 275 to 873 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, 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 44. 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.
SizeMedium: 34,333 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
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Raises the score by about 8 points · Medium effort · Forms & labels
2
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
3
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.
Raises the score by about 7 points · Medium effort · Visual & motion safety

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €50,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Accessibility, at 28 (Weak). Accessibility is about whether the interface is built so that everyone can use it, including people who can't see the screen or can't use a mouse. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Accessibility also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Accessibility grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Accessibility actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for medium effort. 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.

arch eureka eureka zipkin zipkin zipkin-collector zipkin-collector zipkin-collector-activemq zipkin-collector-activemq zipkin-collector-activemq->zipkin-collector zipkin-collector-kafka zipkin-collector-kafka zipkin-collector-kafka->zipkin-collector zipkin-collector-pulsar zipkin-collector-pulsar zipkin-collector-pulsar->zipkin-collector zipkin-collector-rabbitmq zipkin-collector-rabbitmq zipkin-collector-rabbitmq->zipkin-collector zipkin-collector-scribe zipkin-collector-scribe zipkin-collector-scribe->zipkin-collector zipkin-junit5 zipkin-junit5 zipkin-junit5->zipkin zipkin-junit5->zipkin-collector zipkin-lens (Maven) zipkin-lens (Maven) zipkin-lens (npm) zipkin-lens (npm) zipkin-server zipkin-server zipkin-server->zipkin zipkin-server->zipkin-collector zipkin-server->zipkin-collector-activemq zipkin-server->zipkin-collector-kafka zipkin-server->zipkin-collector-pulsar zipkin-server->zipkin-collector-rabbitmq zipkin-server->zipkin-collector-scribe zipkin-storage-cassandra zipkin-storage-cassandra zipkin-server->zipkin-storage-cassandra zipkin-storage-elasticsearch zipkin-storage-elasticsearch zipkin-server->zipkin-storage-elasticsearch zipkin-storage-mysql-v1 zipkin-storage-mysql-v1 zipkin-server->zipkin-storage-mysql-v1

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.

92 modules, with 89 dependencies between them. 3 loops run through 10 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 52 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.lookback2 zipkin-lens.src.test.util.render-with-default-settings3 zipkin2.collector.scribe.generated4 zipkin2.server.internal.prometheus5 zipkin2.storage.mysql.v1.internal.generated.tables6 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage7 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.LookbackMenu8 zipkin-lens.src.test.util9 zipkin2.storage10 zipkin2.v111 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar12 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar.CriterionBox13 zipkin2.internal14 zipkin2.server.internal.mysql15 zipkin2.codec16 zipkin217 zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal.client18 zipkin2.server.internal.health19 zipkin2.server.internal.throttle20 zipkin2.storage.cassandra.internal.call21 zipkin2.storage.mysql.v122 zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal23 zipkin2.server.internal24 zipkin2.storage.cassandra25 zipkin2.collector26 zipkin2.elasticsearch27 zipkin2.server.internal.cassandra328 zipkin2.collector.activemq29 zipkin2.collector.kafka30 zipkin2.collector.pulsar31 zipkin2.collector.rabbitmq32 zipkin2.collector.scribe33 zipkin2.junit534 zipkin2.server.internal.brave35 zipkin2.server.internal.elasticsearch36 zipkin2.server.internal.activemq37 zipkin2.server.internal.kafka38 zipkin2.server.internal.pulsar39 zipkin2.server.internal.rabbitmq40 zipkin2.server.internal.scribe
1 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.lookback
2 zipkin-lens.src.test.util.render-with-default-settings
3 zipkin2.collector.scribe.generated
4 zipkin2.server.internal.prometheus
5 zipkin2.storage.mysql.v1.internal.generated.tables
6 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage2
7 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.LookbackMenu1
8 zipkin-lens.src.test.util1
9 zipkin2.storage36
10 zipkin2.v19
11 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar1
12 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar.CriterionBox1
13 zipkin2.internal31048
14 zipkin2.server.internal.mysql1
15 zipkin2.codec422
16 zipkin21
17 zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal.client21
18 zipkin2.server.internal.health1
19 zipkin2.server.internal.throttle49
20 zipkin2.storage.cassandra.internal.call517
21 zipkin2.storage.mysql.v1214120
22 zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal964
23 zipkin2.server.internal1434110
24 zipkin2.storage.cassandra152816
25 zipkin2.collector2261
26 zipkin2.elasticsearch13117128
27 zipkin2.server.internal.cassandra312
28 zipkin2.collector.activemq148
29 zipkin2.collector.kafka146
30 zipkin2.collector.pulsar1510
31 zipkin2.collector.rabbitmq146
32 zipkin2.collector.scribe3116
33 zipkin2.junit52133
34 zipkin2.server.internal.brave14131
35 zipkin2.server.internal.elasticsearch13
36 zipkin2.server.internal.activemq122
37 zipkin2.server.internal.kafka122
38 zipkin2.server.internal.pulsar122
39 zipkin2.server.internal.rabbitmq122
40 zipkin2.server.internal.scribe121
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.lookback2 zipkin-lens.src.test.util.render-with-default-settings3 zipkin2.collector.scribe.generated4 zipkin2.server.internal.prometheus5 zipkin2.storage.mysql.v1.internal.generated.tables6 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage7 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.LookbackMenu8 zipkin-lens.src.test.util9 zipkin2.storage10 zipkin2.v111 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar12 zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar.CriterionBox13 zipkin2.internal14 zipkin2.server.internal.mysql15 zipkin2.codec16 zipkin217 zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal.client18 zipkin2.server.internal.health19 zipkin2.server.internal.throttle20 zipkin2.storage.cassandra.internal.call21 zipkin2.storage.mysql.v122 zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal23 zipkin2.server.internal24 zipkin2.storage.cassandra25 zipkin2.collector26 zipkin2.elasticsearch27 zipkin2.server.internal.cassandra328 zipkin2.collector.activemq29 zipkin2.collector.kafka30 zipkin2.collector.pulsar31 zipkin2.collector.rabbitmq32 zipkin2.collector.scribe33 zipkin2.junit534 zipkin2.server.internal.brave35 zipkin2.server.internal.elasticsearch36 zipkin2.server.internal.activemq37 zipkin2.server.internal.kafka38 zipkin2.server.internal.pulsar39 zipkin2.server.internal.rabbitmq40 zipkin2.server.internal.scribezipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.lookback1zipkin-lens.src.test.util.render-with-default-settings2zipkin2.collector.scribe.generated3zipkin2.server.internal.prometheus4zipkin2.storage.mysql.v1.internal.generated.tables5zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage6zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.LookbackMenu7zipkin-lens.src.test.util8zipkin2.storage9zipkin2.v110zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar11zipkin-lens.src.components.DiscoverPage.SearchBar.CriterionBox12zipkin2.internal13zipkin2.server.internal.mysql14zipkin2.codec15zipkin216zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal.client17zipkin2.server.internal.health18zipkin2.server.internal.throttle19zipkin2.storage.cassandra.internal.call20zipkin2.storage.mysql.v121zipkin2.elasticsearch.internal22zipkin2.server.internal23zipkin2.storage.cassandra24zipkin2.collector25zipkin2.elasticsearch26zipkin2.server.internal.cassandra327zipkin2.collector.activemq28zipkin2.collector.kafka29zipkin2.collector.pulsar30zipkin2.collector.rabbitmq31zipkin2.collector.scribe32zipkin2.junit533zipkin2.server.internal.brave34zipkin2.server.internal.elasticsearch35zipkin2.server.internal.activemq36zipkin2.server.internal.kafka37zipkin2.server.internal.pulsar38zipkin2.server.internal.rabbitmq39zipkin2.server.internal.scribe40211369113104814221211495172141209641434110152816226113117128121481461510146311621331413113122122122122121+52 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 84% · Strong ·

The Good
D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 7.9 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.8 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 9.5 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 9.6 R3 · React / TS Large Files 9.2 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.5 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.8
The Bad
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 6.5 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 6.3 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 6.7 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 6.1 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 6.7

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 7.9 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.6 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 8.5 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.6 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 55% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 9.9 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.1
The Bad
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 5.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 44% · Weak · gated by R5, P3 ·

The Good
D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.9 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0
The Bad
P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 6.6
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 3.3 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 4.5

At a glance — Security · 75% · Adequate · gated by D30, D36 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 9.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.0 D37 · .NET / C# Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0
The Bad
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 6.5
The Ugly
D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

At a glance — Accessibility · 28% · Weak · gated by AC2, AC6 ·

The Bad
AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 6.0
The Ugly
AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 1.0 AC3 · Repo Page structure 4.3 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 2.2

At a glance — Performance · 82% · Strong ·

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 7.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures36High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection31High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration10Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures2High / Critical

Roadmap

First, ensure all form controls and buttons have proper programmatic labels to replace placeholders. Next, improve visual safety by maintaining visible focus styles, respecting reduced motion preferences, and fixing low-contrast colors. Then, correct page structure by adding required language, title, and main landmark elements while removing meta-refreshes. Finally, address the missing architectural decision record and resolve the significant number of orphaned files, starting with Schema.java and InMemoryStorage.java.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.+8.2 ptsMediumForms & labels
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+3.5 ptsLowADR Quality
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.+7.0 ptsMediumVisual & motion safety
Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md.+2.3 ptsLowDocumentation Quality
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.+4.4 ptsMediumPage structure
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.+3.4 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+3.4 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Accessibility linting is already configured — assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.+2.8 ptsMediumA11y enforcement

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 112 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 5% slop · 49% mixed · 46% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED0.0SlopSecrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED2.0SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED2.3SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED2.4SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED3.0SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.7MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/MySQLSpanConsumer.java6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanStore.java6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED6.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/SearchBar.tsx6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin-collector/kafka/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaCollector.java6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin-collector/rabbitmq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/rabbitmq/RabbitMQCollector.java6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfiguration.java6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED6.9MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED

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 — 46

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 — 300

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 — 219

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 13

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. 82 of 85 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 — 85 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D10D13D15D16D17D19D20D21D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D37D43D44AC2AC3AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX6AX8IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF2PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X4X5

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
  1. 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, 540 of 565 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16cc0-61cb-71b9-b162-32377617eaf9.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

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.

  • D9 Test Distribution — 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 distribution NOT SCORED: this repository's production source spans more than one ecosystem, and the test-pyramid census cannot read the .java test suite(s) — so the pyramid was not measured for the repository as a whole. The suites we could count came back with 227 test method(s) (227 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e), but that is a shape for one part of the product and we do not publish a partial pyramid as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test distribution is excluded from the score rather than counted.
  • D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 227 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 189 test source file(s) (.java) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
  • 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 SCORED: this repository's production source includes .java, and the jvm executor ran against the .java half and did not finish re-running within its tier budget — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in zipkin-lens/ (227 tests)): measured (1 flaky) suite(s) did re-run, and came back with 1 flaky across 1 measured tier(s) — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test reliability is excluded from the score rather than counted. The half was driven by a runner we ship, so this is not a missing-runner gap.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 19 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 22 dependency(ies) and leaving 110 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (REDACTED), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict. For npm the surface is what a published package.json's entry points (exports, main, module, types) export, followed through the source; an entry that names build output the tree does not commit (dist/, build/) is not followed back to source, because only a tsconfig outDir/rootDir pair states that mapping and a bundler's input lives in executable configuration this engine does not evaluate.
  • D27 Navigability — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites, and all 1294 sampled here came from .java files. This repository's .tsx source is a material share of its production lines and contributed none, so the score above is a verdict about the part that was read. Not a finding that the unread half navigates well — it is unmeasured.
  • 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.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Java is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • P8 Schema migrations — 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 schema may be created by a runner, a deploy script or a config file outside what this check reads, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool this check does not name, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.

Repo exclusion declarations: 2 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

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.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • 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").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a 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.
  • 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.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

47 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CriterionBox.CriterionBox at 62.

CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cyclomatic 62)zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:108
span-row.parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 47)zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:48
V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations (cyclomatic 40)zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java:53
DependencyLinker.putTrace (cyclomatic 40)zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/dependency-linker.js:73
V1SpanMetadata.parse (cyclomatic 38)zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V2SpanConverter.java:79

+ 34 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 7 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cyclomatic 62), span-row.parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 47), parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 47). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 7 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.5 to about 7.3/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
  2. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

57 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DependencyLinker.putTrace at 75.

DependencyLinker.putTrace (cognitive 75)zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/dependency-linker.js:73
WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes (cognitive 68)zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:231
CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cognitive 67)zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:108
V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations (cognitive 59)zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java:53
QueryRequest.test (cognitive 54)zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/QueryRequest.java:284

+ 46 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 57 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with DependencyLinker.putTrace (cognitive 75), putTrace (cognitive 75), WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes (cognitive 68). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 57 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.3 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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.

D3 · God Classes7.9 / 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

17 god class(es) detected.

FunctionTooLong: CriterionBox.CriterionBox · ×11zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:108
TooManyMethods: ZipkinElasticsearchStorageProperties · ×4zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageProperties.java:48
FileTooLong: DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsxzipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx
ClassTooLong: Spanzipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:55

What to do

  1. Resolve the 11 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with CriterionBox.tsx, LookbackMenu.tsx, DiscoverPageContent.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ZipkinElasticsearchStorageProperties.java, ElasticsearchStorage.java, InMemoryStorage.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DiscoverPageContent.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 44 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

42 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 20 of the 44 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population. Measured on part of this repository only: .tsx (17% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:94
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×5zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:775
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java:123
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java:191
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:50

+ 22 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with V1JsonSpanReader.java, ActiveMQCollector.java, KafkaCollector.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Span.java, V1JsonSpanReader.java, ElasticsearchVersion.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java, InsertTraceByServiceRemoteService.java, ITDependencies.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D5 · Coupling7.9 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 production modules (Maven+npm), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 4 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 13 of the 15 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: zipkin-storage-mysql-v1 · ×4

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.6 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

5 of 142 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: CassandraStorageBuilder (LCOM4 17) · ×5zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraStorageBuilder.java:23

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with CassandraStorageBuilder.java, MySQLStorage.java, RabbitMQCollector.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 227 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 189 test source file(s) (.java) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

No assertions: does not throw on v2 formatzipkin-lens/src/util/trace.test.js:10

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with trace.test.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/BaseVersion.java. Counted over 167 of the 315 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 39 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

39 deducted task-comment markers across 34333 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×39zipkin-collector/activemq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/activemq/ActiveMQSpanConsumer.java:89

What to do

  1. Resolve the 39 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfiguration.java (3), HttpCall.java (2), ZipkinUiConfiguration.java (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (39 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation QualityAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The READMEs are mostly focused on the docker/test-images directories and describe what each image does (e.g. zipkin-eureka runs Eureka Server for service discovery integration of Zipkin). The root repository's README is not shown in this summary, so its overview/installation/usage/contributing content must be judged against it rather than these Docker-specific docs. (24 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 2 of 3 evaluation groups failed.)

Documentation: no project overviewdocker/test-images/zipkin-eureka/README.md

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 13 build units (Maven) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

39 % of calls cross a namespace and 1 % go through an interface, but 83 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated. Measured over the .java source only — this repository's .tsx was not sampled for call sites, so this score covers part of the tree, not all of it.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

31 finding(s): 0 critical, 26 high, 5 medium, 0 low. 25 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) — `mvnw` (lines 228–232, lines 284–288) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 25 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 (25 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

26 finding(s): 3 critical, 14 high, 8 medium, 1 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 14 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (12), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 7 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.0 / 10Stronggated by 10 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 10 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

167 of 167 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java. Counted over 167 of the 315 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×164zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/InMemoryStorage.java:1
Most significant orphaned file · ×3zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 164 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Schema.java (2), InMemoryStorage.java, DiscoverPageContent.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (164 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ITDependencies.java, ITSpanStore.java, Span.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  3. 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.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 5 platform declaration(s) and 43 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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AC2 · Forms & labels1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id — and neither does anything it renders (a name prop is the form-submission key, not a label) — so it likely renders an unlabelled control. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed. (×2) — zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesGraph.tsx:223, zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:648

What to do

  • Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). — zipkin-lens/index.html:8

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.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety2.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • `button:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:62
  • `.css-in-js` moves (`animation: 0.25s 0s both _________`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. (×2) — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:44, zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:50

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.
AC7 · A11y enforcement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • An a11y linter is configured (Documented) but there's no automated a11y test or CI gate. Add vitest-axe to verify at runtime, then gate it in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 48 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

  • Accessibility linting is already configured — assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords, in this repository's Java: methods that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant or do nothing, dead `if (false)` branches, and skeleton classes most of whose methods are holes.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something. (×11) — benchmarks/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/ServerIntegratedBenchmark.java:58, zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/brave/ITZipkinSelfTracing.java:75, zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/brave/ITZipkinSelfTracing.java:88, …

What to do

  • Clear the softer debt: re-enable or delete @Disabled/@Ignore tests, decide whether each empty method or UnsupportedOperationException is deliberate (and say so in a comment), and replace @SuppressWarnings("all") with targeted, justified suppressions.
M1 · Documentation (README)8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 3 of 18 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.3 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

M4 · Documentation accuracy9.1 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

  • docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_9042_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docker/README.md:55
  • docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_3306_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docker/README.md:58
  • docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_9200_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docker/README.md:61
  • docker/README.md documents the environment variable `ES_AWS_DOMAIN`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docker/README.md:64
  • docker/README.md documents the environment variable `KAFKA_PORT_2181_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docker/README.md:65
  • zipkin-lens/README.md runs `yarn run compile`, but no package.json declares a `compile` script. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-lens/README.md:62
  • zipkin-lens/README.md runs `yarn run extract`, but no package.json declares a `extract` script. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-lens/README.md:69
  • zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `QUERY_LOG_LEVEL`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-server/README.md:143
  • zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `QUERY_NAMES_MAX_AGE`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-server/README.md:144
  • zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `CASSANDRA_INDEX_CACHE_MAX`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-server/README.md:242
  • zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `CASSANDRA_INDEX_CACHE_TTL`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-server/README.md:243
  • zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `ACTIVEMQ_CLIENT_ID_PREFIX`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — zipkin-server/README.md:410

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_9042_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_3306_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_9200_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docker/README.md documents the environment variable `ES_AWS_DOMAIN`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docker/README.md documents the environment variable `KAFKA_PORT_2181_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P2 · Observability10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 22159 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: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — 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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • A JMH/Jetpack Benchmark suite exists but nothing turns on its allocation measurement — allocations (the main way hot code pressures a garbage collector or allocator) aren't being measured. — benchmarks/src/test/java/zipkin2/SpanBenchmarks.java

What to do

  • Run JMH with the GC profiler (`-prof gc`, or addProfiler(GCProfiler.class)) so allocation rate regressions are visible, not just time.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 55 use(s) across 28,486 production line(s) (~1.9/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
  • Java: on hot paths, work through buffer views (ByteBuffer/LongBuffer slices, MemorySegment) instead of copies, avoid boxing with primitive collections (fastutil, Eclipse Collections, HPPC, Trove), presize collections and StringBuilders, and pool expensive buffers (Netty's pooled allocator, commons-pool).
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

R1 · Type Safety6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

  • 85 typed · 41 plain JS — the untyped files are zipkin-lens/src/components/App/Layout.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/App/index.js, zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesGraph.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesPage.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/NodeDetailData.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.test.jsx (+35 more). 0 production file(s) opt out entirely with @ts-nocheck · 1 @ts-ignore suppression(s).

What to do

  • Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

  • zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteValuesSlice.ts:15 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/remoteServicesSlice.ts:15 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/spansSlice.ts:15 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteValuesSlice.ts:15
  • zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:15 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/servicesSlice.ts:15 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:15
  • zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:42 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteValuesSlice.ts:44 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/dependenciesSlice.ts:55 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/remoteServicesSlice.ts:44 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:42
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:214 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:231 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:214
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:319 · zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:339 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 58 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:319
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:248 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:262 — 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. — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:248
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:43 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:59 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:43
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:52 · zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:247 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:52
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/AnnotationViewer.tsx:65 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/TagList.tsx:47 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/AnnotationViewer.tsx:65
  • zipkin-lens/src/util/timestamp.js:8 · zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/trace.js:108 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 60 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — zipkin-lens/src/util/timestamp.js:8
  • zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.ts:248 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.ts:257 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.ts:248

What to do

  • Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

  • putTrace has cyclomatic complexity 40 and cognitive complexity 75; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/dependency-linker.js:73
  • parseAnnotationRows has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 33; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:48
  • mergeV2ById has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 31; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:211
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:321
  • merge has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:67
  • fn has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/helpers.ts:115
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:300
  • getClockSkew has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/clock-skew.js:52
  • tryMerge has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:161
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:141
  • clean has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:24
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:65

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

  • zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx has 668 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:1
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx has 450 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:1

What to do

  • Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

  • No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×26) — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:1, zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineHeader.tsx:1, zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineRowEdges.tsx:1, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R5 · Dependency Freshness3.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

  • 67 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30

What to do

  • Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

R7 · Dead Code9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

  • Unreachable from the 2 application, 8 tooling and 28 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (2 application, 8 tooling, 28 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×2) — zipkin-lens/src/prop-types/index.js, zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/index.ts
  • Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×5) — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/types.ts:43, zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/types.ts:47, zipkin-lens/src/constants/color.ts:169, …

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

  • Declared in zipkin-lens/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)
  • Only test files import it (first: zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.test.ts:6) — move it to devDependencies. — zipkin-lens/package.json:78

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — and because this repository commits the configuration that serves its own HTTP surface, that configuration could be read in full for the security response headers it sets. 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.

  • None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `nginx.conf` is committed to this repository and declares the server that serves it, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.) — docker/test-images/zipkin-ui/nginx.conf:38

What to do

  • Set security response headers on the surface this repository serves: an `add_header` directive per header in the nginx/Caddy/Apache config, a `_headers` / `vercel.json` / `netlify.toml` entry for a static host, or `helmet()` in the HTTP server. `Content-Security-Policy` is the one that pays for itself first — it is what contains an injected script once one reaches the page — followed by `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` and a frame policy (`X-Frame-Options: DENY`, or CSP `frame-ancestors`). Where the app is served from a build container, the header configuration belongs in the image beside the built assets, so it ships with them rather than depending on where it lands.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. 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 `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X20 · Mistyped argument guard6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • The guard on line 71 rejects `topic` and line 71 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `StringUtils.isNullOrEmpty(topic)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `topic`, and on that path `topic` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:71
  • The guard on line 78 rejects `serviceUrl` and line 78 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `StringUtils.isNullOrEmpty(serviceUrl)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `serviceUrl`, and on that path `serviceUrl` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:78
  • The guard on line 85 rejects `subscriptionName` and line 85 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `StringUtils.isNullOrEmpty(subscriptionName)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `subscriptionName`, and on that path `subscriptionName` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:85
  • The guard on line 98 rejects `clientPropsMap` and line 98 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `clientPropsMap.isEmpty()` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `clientPropsMap`, and on that path `clientPropsMap` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:98
  • The guard on line 111 rejects `consumerPropsMap` and line 111 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `consumerPropsMap.isEmpty()` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `consumerPropsMap`, and on that path `consumerPropsMap` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:111

What to do

  • Each finding names the throw and the test in its own condition that is true of a NON-null value. Confirm from the two, then throw the exception that describes what was actually wrong: on the JVM `IllegalArgumentException` for a value that arrived empty (`Objects.requireNonNull(x)` for the null half, Kotlin's `require(x.isNotEmpty())` for the empty one), in Dart `ArgumentError.value(x, 'x', 'must not be empty')`, in F# `invalidArg (nameof x) "must not be empty"` (keeping `nullArg` for the null half). Splitting the two conditions is usually clearer than picking one exception for both: they are different failures and the caller may want to handle them differently.
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • `debug` at line 69 is called with an argument built by `Arrays.toString(includes)` (line 69), whose cost grows with the collection it walks. Java evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE entering the method, so that join/projection runs in full every time this line is reached — and then the level check inside the logger discards the string it produced, because debug is a level a shipped configuration normally leaves off. Nothing here decides beforehand whether the message is wanted: no `isDebugEnabled`/`isTraceEnabled` test, no debug flag, no lambda or `Supplier` the logger calls only when the level is on. — zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinActuatorImporter.java:69

What to do

  • In Java, put the construction behind the logger's own check (`if (log.isDebugEnabled())` for SLF4J and Log4j, `if (logger.isLoggable(Level.FINE))` for java.util.logging), or hand the logger a lambda it calls only when the level is on (Log4j 2's `Supplier` overloads, SLF4J 2's `log.atDebug().addArgument(() -> …)`). A `{}` placeholder alone is not the fix: it defers the formatting, not the stream, join or serialisation in the argument.
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an enhanced `for` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is iterating invalidates the fail-fast iterator it is holding, so the next `next()` throws `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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.

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • ~0.4 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 3 assertion(s) across the 7852 source line(s) of the 79 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanTable/SpanTable.tsx (3). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.

What to do

  • The findings name the configuration each number was taken from and, for the assertions, the files that hold them. Turn null checking on where it is off — `"strict": true` in the base tsconfig that the others extend switches `strictNullChecks` on with the rest of the family — and then resolve the assertions rather than adding to them. A `!` on a value the checker could show to be null is a promise the author cannot check from where they are standing, and each one is a `TypeError: Cannot read properties of null` waiting for the path that makes it true; where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (narrow it with a test, make the property required, drop the `?`).

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 10 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (18%; ≈20% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 45 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).

DimensionWCAG 2.2 A/AA criteriaCoverage
AC2 · Forms & labels1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety1.4.3, 2.4.7Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcementenforcement — no page criterionEnforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 45 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health84%StrongSolid.
Architecture97%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity55%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness44%Weak — gated by R5, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security75%Adequate — gated by D30, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility28%Weak — gated by AC2, AC6Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance82%StrongSolid.
Unscored — 1 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.

  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 42 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half's runner produced no measurement
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 19 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 22 dependency(ies) and leaving 110 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 22 declared JVM dependency coordinate(s) were read from its 19 Maven/Gradle manifest(s), but Maven Central could not be asked for the licence of 22 of them (HTTP 429 Too Many Requests from https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/junit/jupiter/junit-jupiter/5.14.3/junit-jupiter-5.14.3.pom), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, 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
  • 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.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — zipkin-lens/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test distribution not scored — polyglot repository, one half's tests are uncountable
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (63 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
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — 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'.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM, JavaScript/TypeScript source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
  • P8 Schema migrations — jOOQ is declared, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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
  • R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 46 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×14
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×3
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AC3 · Page structure · <html> without a lang · ×1
  • <html> without a lang zipkin-lens/index.html:8 — The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
D11 · Test Reliability · Flaky test · ×1
  • Flaky test: zipkin-lens/src/components/UiConfig/UiConfig.test.jsx:: <UiConfig /> fetches config, suspends until response, renders after response — Passed 2×, failed 1× across repeated runs.
D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 300 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×39
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/activemq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/activemq/ActiveMQSpanConsumer.java:89 — // TODO: consider how to reuse buffers here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/core/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/Collector.java:272 — // TODO: this logic needs to be redone as service names are more important than span IDs. Also, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/kafka/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaCollector.java:243 — // TODO: bad idea to lazy reference properties from a mutable builder — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/rabbitmq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/rabbitmq/RabbitMQCollector.java:147 — // TODO: bad idea to lazy reference properties from a mutable builder — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/kafka/src/test/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaExtension.java:89 — // TODO: someone who knows Kafka well, make ^^ comment better! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/scribe/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/scribe/ScribeInboundHandler.java:33 — // TODO: errorprone wants us to check futures before returning, but what would be a sensible check? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-collector/scribe/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/scribe/NettyScribeServer.java:58 — // TODO: chain these futures, and probably block a bit — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/SearchBar.tsx:227 — // TODO: Give the appropriate type to ThunkDispatch after TypeScriptizing all action creators. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/Header.tsx:41 — // TODO: Should use theme.typography.fontWeighRegular after updating material-ui packages. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java:94 — // TODO: errorprone wants us to check this future before returning, but what would be a sensible — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/client/HttpCall.java:143 — // TODO: errorprone wants us to check this future before returning, but what would be a sensible — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/brave/ZipkinSelfTracingConfiguration.java:131 — // TODO: less memory efficient, but not a huge problem for self-tracing which is rarely on — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfiguration.java:77 — // TODO: see if we can override the TLS via properties instead as that has less surface area. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfiguration.java:90 — // TODO: find or raise a bug with Elastic — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/test/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/integration/ElasticsearchBaseExtension.java:62 — // TODO: find or raise a bug with Elastic — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfiguration.java:172 — // TODO: is there a special cased empty consumer we can use here? I suspect debug is cluttered — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/HttpClientFactory.java:62 — // TODO(anuraaga): Add unit tests after https://github.com/line/armeria/issues/2220
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ui/ZipkinUiProperties.java:13 — // TODO: this isn't honored in lens https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/issues/2519
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ui/ZipkinUiConfiguration.java:92 — // TODO This approach requires maintenance when new UI routes are added. Change to the following: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ui/ZipkinUiConfiguration.java:168 — // TODO: see if vite config can make these relative by default! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ITZipkinServerSsl.java:34 — // TODO: use normal spring.server properties after https://github.com/line/armeria/issues/1834
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfigurationTest.java:155 — // TODO(anuraaga): Verify connect timeout after https://github.com/line/armeria/issues/1890
  • TodoComment zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfigurationTest.java:171 — // TODO(anuraaga): Verify connect timeout after https://github.com/line/armeria/issues/1890
  • TodoComment zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanStore.java:173 — // TODO: smartly handle when serviceName is null. For example, rank recently written serviceNames — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanStore.java:190 — // TODO: ideally, the buckets are traversed backwards, only spawning queries for older buckets — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×26
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineHeader.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineRowEdges.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/HeaderMenu.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/Timeline.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/MiniTimelineOverlay.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/MiniTimeline.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/TracePageContent.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/Header.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/AnnotationViewer.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineRow.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineRowBar.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPage.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanTable/SpanTable.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/AnnotationTable/AnnotationTable.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/prop-types/index.js:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/SpanDetailDrawer.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/TagList.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/TickMarkers/TickMarkers.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/TracePage.jsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/App/App.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineRowAnnotation.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/MiniTimelineRow.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/AnnotationTooltip/AnnotationTooltip.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file zipkin-lens/src/components/App/AlertSnackbar.tsx:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • + 1 more in this group — see findings.md.
D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×11
  • FunctionTooLong: CriterionBox.CriterionBox zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:108 — FunctionTooLong — CriterionBox runs 287 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 187 over it, 2.87× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: LookbackMenu.LookbackMenu zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/LookbackMenu.tsx:77 — FunctionTooLong — LookbackMenu runs 151 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 51 over it, 1.51× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: DiscoverPageContent.useQueryParams zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:46 — FunctionTooLong — useQueryParams runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: DependenciesGraph.DependenciesGraph zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesGraph.tsx:91 — FunctionTooLong — DependenciesGraph runs 121 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 21 over it, 1.21× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: TimelineHeader.TimelineHeader zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineHeader.tsx:70 — FunctionTooLong — TimelineHeader runs 120 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.20× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: span-row.parseAnnotationRows zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:48 — FunctionTooLong — parseAnnotationRows runs 117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.17× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: NodeDetailData.NodeDetailDataImpl zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/NodeDetailData.tsx:61 — FunctionTooLong — NodeDetailDataImpl runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: SearchBar.SearchBarImpl zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/SearchBar.tsx:66 — FunctionTooLong — SearchBarImpl runs 111 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.11× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: HeaderMenu.HeaderMenu zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/HeaderMenu.tsx:29 — FunctionTooLong — HeaderMenu runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: DependenciesPage.DependenciesPageImpl zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesPage.tsx:103 — FunctionTooLong — DependenciesPageImpl runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: Timeline.Timeline zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/Timeline.tsx:54 — FunctionTooLong — Timeline runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×10
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×7
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×7
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:94 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:94-99 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:57-62 — before extracting anything, compare `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java` and `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:94` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:100` calls `equals`, `peekNull`, `fromJson` and `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:63` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) zipkin-collector/activemq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/activemq/ActiveMQCollector.java:42 — zipkin-collector/activemq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/activemq/ActiveMQCollector.java:42-47 | zipkin-collector/rabbitmq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/rabbitmq/RabbitMQCollector.java:65-70 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) zipkin-collector/kafka/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaCollector.java:73 — zipkin-collector/kafka/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaCollector.java:73-78 | zipkin-collector/scribe/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/scribe/ScribeCollector.java:38-43 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchVersion.java:32 — zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchVersion.java:32-37 | zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/OpensearchVersion.java:30-35 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:161 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:161-166 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:173-178 — 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 `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:161` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:775 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:775-779 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1Span.java:287-291 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:66 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:66-70 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:43-47 — before extracting anything, compare `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java` and `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:66` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchVersion.java:26 — zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchVersion.java:26-30 | zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/OpensearchVersion.java:24-28 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `other` to `ElasticsearchVersion` in one and `OpensearchVersion` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectRemoteServiceNames.java:32 — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectRemoteServiceNames.java:32-36 | zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectSpanNames.java:32-36 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:266 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:266-270 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:282-286 — 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 `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:266` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java:123 — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java:123-129 | zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceSpan.java:150-156 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertTraceByServiceRemoteService.java:36 — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertTraceByServiceRemoteService.java:36-43 | zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertTraceByServiceSpan.java:39-45 — 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 (7 lines × 2) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:89 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:89-95 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:157-163 — 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 `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:89` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:648 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:648-654 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:666-672 — 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 `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:648` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:665` calls `kind` and `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:647` 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 × 2) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSearchEnabledFalse.java:55 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSearchEnabledFalse.java:55-62 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITServiceAndSpanNames.java:100-106 — 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.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×5
  • Low cohesion: CassandraStorageBuilder (LCOM4 17) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraStorageBuilder.java:23 — CassandraStorageBuilder's methods fall into 17 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 17 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 7) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/MySQLStorage.java:34 — Builder's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 5) zipkin-collector/rabbitmq/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/rabbitmq/RabbitMQCollector.java:44 — Builder's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 5) zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:29 — Builder's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: Proto3CodecInteropTest (LCOM4 4) benchmarks/src/test/java/zipkin2/internal/Proto3CodecInteropTest.java:32 — Proto3CodecInteropTest's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
X20 · Mistyped argument guard · Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves · ×5
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:71 — The guard on line 71 rejects `topic` and line 71 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `StringUtils.isNullOrEmpty(topic)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `topic`, and on that path `topic` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:78 — The guard on line 78 rejects `serviceUrl` and line 78 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `StringUtils.isNullOrEmpty(serviceUrl)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `serviceUrl`, and on that path `serviceUrl` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:85 — The guard on line 85 rejects `subscriptionName` and line 85 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `StringUtils.isNullOrEmpty(subscriptionName)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `subscriptionName`, and on that path `subscriptionName` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:98 — The guard on line 98 rejects `clientPropsMap` and line 98 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `clientPropsMap.isEmpty()` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `clientPropsMap`, and on that path `clientPropsMap` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves zipkin-collector/pulsar/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/pulsar/PulsarCollector.java:111 — The guard on line 111 rejects `consumerPropsMap` and line 111 reports that rejection as `NullPointerException` — but the condition's own test `consumerPropsMap.isEmpty()` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `consumerPropsMap`, and on that path `consumerPropsMap` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `NullPointerException` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Throw `IllegalArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×4
  • TooManyMethods: ZipkinElasticsearchStorageProperties zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageProperties.java:48 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. This type is bound by @ConfigurationProperties, so its accessors ARE the configuration keys: grouping members onto a nested type renames every key beneath it, and keeping the keys means the delegate still needs the full pass-through pair, which does not reduce the count. To reduce it, treat the split as a key migration — move each cohesive group onto its own bound type and publish the new key names, keeping the old ones accepted for a deprecation period. Where the key surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: ElasticsearchStorage zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchStorage.java:46 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× 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.
  • TooManyMethods: InMemoryStorage zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/InMemoryStorage.java:59 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× 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.
  • TooManyMethods: Span zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:55 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× 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 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java:191 — zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java:191-199 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/SpanBytesDecoderDetector.java:100-108 — 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 `zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java:191` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java:113 — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java:113-121 | zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceSpan.java:140-148 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectTraceIdsFromServiceRemoteService.java:113` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/SelectSpansAndAnnotations.java:259 — zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/SelectSpansAndAnnotations.java:259-267 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/ThriftEndpointCodec.java:32-40 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:285 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:285-293 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:502-510 — 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 `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:285` 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.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×4
  • Off the main sequence: zipkin-storage-mysql-v1 — zipkin-storage-mysql-v1: abstractness 0.03, instability 0.00, distance 0.97 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: zipkin-storage-cassandra — zipkin-storage-cassandra: abstractness 0.17, instability 0.00, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: zipkin — zipkin: abstractness 0.17, instability 0.00, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: zipkin-storage-elasticsearch — zipkin-storage-elasticsearch: abstractness 0.29, instability 0.00, distance 0.71 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AC2 · Forms & labels · <Autocomplete> field component without a label · ×2
  • <Autocomplete> field component without a label zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesGraph.tsx:223 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id — and neither does anything it renders (a name prop is the form-submission key, not a label) — so it likely renders an unlabelled control. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.
  • <Autocomplete> field component without a label zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:648 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id — and neither does anything it renders (a name prop is the form-submission key, not a label) — so it likely renders an unlabelled control. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×2
  • Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:44 — `.css-in-js` moves (`animation: 0.25s 0s both _________`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
  • Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:50 — `.css-in-js` moves (`animation: 0.25s 0s both _________`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:50 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:50-59 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:70-79 — 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) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:126 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:126-135 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:146-155 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:128 — zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:128-134 | zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:136-142 | zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:144-151 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:144` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note 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 before the matched lines, `zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:134` calls `set`, `get` and `zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:127` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:311 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:311-318 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:371-378 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:625-631 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:311` 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.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a · ×1
  • Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:62 — `button:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cyclomatic 62) · ×1
  • CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cyclomatic 62) zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:108 — CriterionBox.CriterionBox has cyclomatic complexity 62 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 62 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function literals inside it that branch (lines 300, 141, 215, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · span-row.parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 47) · ×1
  • span-row.parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 47) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:48 — span-row.parseAnnotationRows has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 16 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations (cyclomatic 40) · ×1
  • V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations (cyclomatic 40) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java:53 — V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations has cyclomatic complexity 40 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DependencyLinker.putTrace (cyclomatic 40) · ×1
  • DependencyLinker.putTrace (cyclomatic 40) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/dependency-linker.js:73 — DependencyLinker.putTrace has cyclomatic complexity 40 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1SpanMetadata.parse (cyclomatic 38) · ×1
  • V1SpanMetadata.parse (cyclomatic 38) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V2SpanConverter.java:79 — V1SpanMetadata.parse has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DependencyLinker.putTrace (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • DependencyLinker.putTrace (cyclomatic 30) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/DependencyLinker.java:44 — DependencyLinker.putTrace has cyclomatic complexity 30 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · QueryRequest.test (cyclomatic 29) · ×1
  • QueryRequest.test (cyclomatic 29) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/QueryRequest.java:284 — QueryRequest.test has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · span-row.newSpanRow (cyclomatic 29) · ×1
  • span-row.newSpanRow (cyclomatic 29) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:309 — span-row.newSpanRow has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 321, 374). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V2SpanReader.fromJson (cyclomatic 27) · ×1
  • V2SpanReader.fromJson (cyclomatic 27) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:16 — V2SpanReader.fromJson has cyclomatic complexity 27 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.next (cyclomatic 26) · ×1
  • DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.next (cyclomatic 26) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.java:79 — DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.next has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CassandraSpanConsumer.accept (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • CassandraSpanConsumer.accept (cyclomatic 25) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanConsumer.java:101 — CassandraSpanConsumer.accept has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1SpanConverter.processBinaryAnnotations (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • V1SpanConverter.processBinaryAnnotations (cyclomatic 24) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java:207 — V1SpanConverter.processBinaryAnnotations has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · span-cleaner.mergeV2ById (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • span-cleaner.mergeV2ById (cyclomatic 24) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:211 — span-cleaner.mergeV2ById has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes (cyclomatic 23) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:231 — WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · JsonSerializers.parseSpan (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • JsonSerializers.parseSpan (cyclomatic 22) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/JsonSerializers.java:42 — JsonSerializers.parseSpan has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Trace.merge (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • Trace.merge (cyclomatic 21) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/Trace.java:19 — Trace.merge has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · span-cleaner.merge (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • span-cleaner.merge (cyclomatic 20) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:67 — span-cleaner.merge has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SpanField.readValue (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • SpanField.readValue (cyclomatic 19) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/Proto3ZipkinFields.java:303 — SpanField.readValue has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). 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. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Endpoint.writeIpV6 (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • Endpoint.writeIpV6 (cyclomatic 19) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java:361 — Endpoint.writeIpV6 has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • V1SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cyclomatic 18) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:22 — V1SpanWriter.sizeInBytes has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1SpanWriter.write (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • V1SpanWriter.write (cyclomatic 18) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:93 — V1SpanWriter.write has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Endpoint.detectFamily (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • Endpoint.detectFamily (cyclomatic 18) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java:316 — Endpoint.detectFamily has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BatchInsertSpans.apply (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • BatchInsertSpans.apply (cyclomatic 18) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/MySQLSpanConsumer.java:59 — BatchInsertSpans.apply has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BulkIndexWriter.write (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • BulkIndexWriter.write (cyclomatic 18) REDACTED:73 — BulkIndexWriter.write has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · span-cleaner.tryMerge (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • span-cleaner.tryMerge (cyclomatic 18) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:161 — span-cleaner.tryMerge has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clock-skew.getClockSkew (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • clock-skew.getClockSkew (cyclomatic 18) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/clock-skew.js:52 — clock-skew.getClockSkew has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · helpers.convertSpanTreeToSpanRowsAndTimestamps.spanRows · ×1
  • helpers.convertSpanTreeToSpanRowsAndTimestamps.spanRows::fn (cyclomatic 18) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/helpers.ts:115 — helpers.convertSpanTreeToSpanRowsAndTimestamps.spanRows::fn has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ThriftCodec.skip (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • ThriftCodec.skip (cyclomatic 17) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/ThriftCodec.java:122 — ThriftCodec.skip has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Endpoint.textToNumericFormatV6 (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • Endpoint.textToNumericFormatV6 (cyclomatic 17) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java:425 — Endpoint.textToNumericFormatV6 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · span-cleaner.clean (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • span-cleaner.clean (cyclomatic 17) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:24 — span-cleaner.clean has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1JsonSpanReader.fromJson (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • V1JsonSpanReader.fromJson (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:41 — V1JsonSpanReader.fromJson has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V1ThriftSpanReader.read (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • V1ThriftSpanReader.read (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1ThriftSpanReader.java:37 — V1ThriftSpanReader.read has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BinaryAnnotationReader.read (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • BinaryAnnotationReader.read (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1ThriftSpanReader.java:121 — BinaryAnnotationReader.read has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V2SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • V2SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanWriter.java:19 — V2SpanWriter.sizeInBytes has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V2SpanWriter.write (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • V2SpanWriter.write (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanWriter.java:78 — V2SpanWriter.write has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Builder.build (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • Builder.build (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/QueryRequest.java:240 — Builder.build has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · V2SpanConverter.convert (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • V2SpanConverter.convert (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V2SpanConverter.java:27 — V2SpanConverter.convert has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Builder.merge (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • Builder.merge (cyclomatic 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:349 — Builder.merge has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · InsertSpan.newCompletionStage (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • InsertSpan.newCompletionStage (cyclomatic 16) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertSpan.java:140 — InsertSpan.newCompletionStage has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1
  • No assertions: does not throw on v2 format zipkin-lens/src/util/trace.test.js:10 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DependencyLinker.putTrace (cognitive 75) · ×1
  • DependencyLinker.putTrace (cognitive 75) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/dependency-linker.js:73 — DependencyLinker.putTrace has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (62 pts), boolean chains 10, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 40). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes (cognitive 68) · ×1
  • WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes (cognitive 68) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:231 — WriteBuffer.asciiSizeInBytes has cognitive complexity 68 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 19 (65 pts), if/else 3 (nesting depth added 46). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cognitive 67) · ×1
  • CriterionBox.CriterionBox (cognitive 67) zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:108 — CriterionBox.CriterionBox has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 30 (46 pts), boolean chains 15, match/switch 4 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 18). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 67 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function literals inside it that branch (lines 300, 141, 215, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations (cognitive 59) · ×1
  • V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations (cognitive 59) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java:53 — V1SpanConverter.processAnnotations has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 34 (45 pts), boolean chains 11, ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · QueryRequest.test (cognitive 54) · ×1
  • QueryRequest.test (cognitive 54) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/QueryRequest.java:284 — QueryRequest.test has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (35 pts), boolean chains 11, loops 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 26). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V2SpanReader.fromJson (cognitive 52) · ×1
  • V2SpanReader.fromJson (cognitive 52) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:16 — V2SpanReader.fromJson has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (40 pts), loops 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DependencyLinker.putTrace (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • DependencyLinker.putTrace (cognitive 50) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/DependencyLinker.java:44 — DependencyLinker.putTrace has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (38 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1SpanMetadata.parse (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • V1SpanMetadata.parse (cognitive 50) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V2SpanConverter.java:79 — V1SpanMetadata.parse has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (37 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 1, match/switch 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · span-row.parseAnnotationRows (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • span-row.parseAnnotationRows (cognitive 50) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:48 — span-row.parseAnnotationRows has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (31 pts), boolean chains 16, match/switch 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 9). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 17 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Trace.merge (cognitive 44) · ×1
  • Trace.merge (cognitive 44) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/Trace.java:19 — Trace.merge has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (36 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 24). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CassandraSpanConsumer.accept (cognitive 40) · ×1
  • CassandraSpanConsumer.accept (cognitive 40) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanConsumer.java:101 — CassandraSpanConsumer.accept has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (21 pts), loops 8 (10 pts), ternaries 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BatchInsertSpans.apply (cognitive 39) · ×1
  • BatchInsertSpans.apply (cognitive 39) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/MySQLSpanConsumer.java:59 — BatchInsertSpans.apply has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), ternaries 4 (10 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · helpers.convertSpanTreeToSpanRowsAndTimestamps.spanRows · ×1
  • helpers.convertSpanTreeToSpanRowsAndTimestamps.spanRows::fn (cognitive 34) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/helpers.ts:115 — helpers.convertSpanTreeToSpanRowsAndTimestamps.spanRows::fn has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (25 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · span-cleaner.mergeV2ById (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • span-cleaner.mergeV2ById (cognitive 33) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:211 — span-cleaner.mergeV2ById has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (21 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 2 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1SpanWriter.write (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • V1SpanWriter.write (cognitive 32) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:93 — V1SpanWriter.write has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (28 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Endpoint.detectFamily (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • Endpoint.detectFamily (cognitive 32) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java:316 — Endpoint.detectFamily has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (24 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1SpanConverter.processBinaryAnnotations (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • V1SpanConverter.processBinaryAnnotations (cognitive 31) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java:207 — V1SpanConverter.processBinaryAnnotations has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Endpoint.writeIpV6 (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • Endpoint.writeIpV6 (cognitive 31) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java:361 — Endpoint.writeIpV6 has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (25 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · span-row.newSpanRow (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • span-row.newSpanRow (cognitive 31) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:309 — span-row.newSpanRow has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (22 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 321, 374). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • V1SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cognitive 30) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1SpanWriter.java:22 — V1SpanWriter.sizeInBytes has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (26 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WriteBuffer.writeUtf8 (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • WriteBuffer.writeUtf8 (cognitive 27) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:91 — WriteBuffer.writeUtf8 has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1JsonSpanReader.fromJson (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • V1JsonSpanReader.fromJson (cognitive 25) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:41 — V1JsonSpanReader.fromJson has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), loops 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TimelineRowEdges.TimelineRowEdgeImpl (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • TimelineRowEdges.TimelineRowEdgeImpl (cognitive 25) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Timeline/TimelineRowEdges.tsx:60 — TimelineRowEdges.TimelineRowEdgeImpl has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). None of this is in the body itself: all 25 points belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 108, 70). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1ThriftSpanReader.read (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • V1ThriftSpanReader.read (cognitive 23) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1ThriftSpanReader.java:37 — V1ThriftSpanReader.read has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (16 pts), loops 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Endpoint.textToNumericFormatV6 (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Endpoint.textToNumericFormatV6 (cognitive 23) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java:425 — Endpoint.textToNumericFormatV6 has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), loops 4, boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexNameFormatter.formatTypeAndRange (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • IndexNameFormatter.formatTypeAndRange (cognitive 23) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/IndexNameFormatter.java:102 — IndexNameFormatter.formatTypeAndRange has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (21 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WriteBuffer.utf8SizeInBytes (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • WriteBuffer.utf8SizeInBytes (cognitive 22) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java:195 — WriteBuffer.utf8SizeInBytes has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.next (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.next (cognitive 22) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.java:79 — DependencyLinkV2SpanIterator.next has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V2SpanWriter.write (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • V2SpanWriter.write (cognitive 21) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanWriter.java:78 — V2SpanWriter.write has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V1JsonSpanReader.readBinaryAnnotation (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • V1JsonSpanReader.readBinaryAnnotation (cognitive 20) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:117 — V1JsonSpanReader.readBinaryAnnotation has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BinaryAnnotationReader.read (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • BinaryAnnotationReader.read (cognitive 20) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1ThriftSpanReader.java:121 — BinaryAnnotationReader.read has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JsonSerializers.parseSpan (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • JsonSerializers.parseSpan (cognitive 20) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/JsonSerializers.java:42 — JsonSerializers.parseSpan has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · span-cleaner.merge (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • span-cleaner.merge (cognitive 20) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:67 — span-cleaner.merge has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, boolean chains 7, ternaries 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JsonEscaper.jsonEscape (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • JsonEscaper.jsonEscape (cognitive 19) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/JsonEscaper.java:9 — JsonEscaper.jsonEscape has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V2SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • V2SpanWriter.sizeInBytes (cognitive 19) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanWriter.java:19 — V2SpanWriter.sizeInBytes has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BulkIndexWriter.write (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • BulkIndexWriter.write (cognitive 19) REDACTED:73 — BulkIndexWriter.write has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CassandraSpanStore.newBucketedTraceIdCall (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • CassandraSpanStore.newBucketedTraceIdCall (cognitive 19) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanStore.java:175 — CassandraSpanStore.newBucketedTraceIdCall has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), ternaries 2, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InitialEndpointSupplier.get (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • InitialEndpointSupplier.get (cognitive 18) zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/InitialEndpointSupplier.java:32 — InitialEndpointSupplier.get has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clock-skew.getClockSkew (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • clock-skew.getClockSkew (cognitive 18) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/clock-skew.js:52 — clock-skew.getClockSkew has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Builder.build (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Builder.build (cognitive 17) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/QueryRequest.java:240 — Builder.build has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V2SpanConverter.convert (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • V2SpanConverter.convert (cognitive 17) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V2SpanConverter.java:27 — V2SpanConverter.convert has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Builder.merge (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Builder.merge (cognitive 17) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:349 — Builder.merge has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InsertSpan.newCompletionStage (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • InsertSpan.newCompletionStage (cognitive 17) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertSpan.java:140 — InsertSpan.newCompletionStage has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · KafkaCollectorWorker.run (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • KafkaCollectorWorker.run (cognitive 17) zipkin-collector/kafka/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaCollectorWorker.java:57 — KafkaCollectorWorker.run has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), error handling 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InMemoryStorage.doAccept (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • InMemoryStorage.doAccept (cognitive 16) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/InMemoryStorage.java:178 — InMemoryStorage.doAccept has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SelectSpansAndAnnotations.processAnnotationRecord (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • SelectSpansAndAnnotations.processAnnotationRecord (cognitive 16) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/SelectSpansAndAnnotations.java:153 — SelectSpansAndAnnotations.processAnnotationRecord has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Parser.convert (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Parser.convert (cognitive 16) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/BaseVersion.java:65 — Parser.convert has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), error handling 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HostAndPort.fromString (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • HostAndPort.fromString (cognitive 16) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/internal/HostAndPort.java:52 — HostAndPort.fromString has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ZipkinRabbitMQCollectorProperties.toBuilder (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • ZipkinRabbitMQCollectorProperties.toBuilder (cognitive 16) zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/rabbitmq/ZipkinRabbitMQCollectorProperties.java:116 — ZipkinRabbitMQCollectorProperties.toBuilder has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HeaderMenu.HeaderMenu (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • HeaderMenu.HeaderMenu (cognitive 16) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/HeaderMenu.tsx:29 — HeaderMenu.HeaderMenu has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 6, if/else 5 (6 pts), ternaries 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 1). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 89, 67, 61). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clean (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • clean (cognitive 16) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:24 — clean has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1
  • FileTooLong: DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx — FileTooLong — 539 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 39 over it, 1.08× 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.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: Span zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java:55 — ClassTooLong — 416 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.04× 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.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:44 — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:44-62 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:19-37 — before extracting anything, compare `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java` and `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:44` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:63` calls `name`, `nextString`, `equals` and `zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V2SpanReader.java:38` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasErrorCount.java:24 — zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasErrorCount.java:24-39 | zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasIpv6.java:24-39 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasErrorCount.java:24` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectFromSpan.java:69 — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectFromSpan.java:69-78 | zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchSpanStore.java:126-137 — 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. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasRemoteServiceName.java:30 — zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasRemoteServiceName.java:30-41 | zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasTraceIdHigh.java:36-47 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/HasRemoteServiceName.java:30` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchSpecificTemplates.java:96 — zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchSpecificTemplates.java:96-106 | zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/OpensearchSpecificTemplates.java:71-81 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchSpecificTemplates.java:96` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `version` to `ElasticsearchVersion` in one and `OpensearchVersion` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) REDACTED:41 — REDACTED:41-48 | zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/DateUtil.java:18-25 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (58 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (58 lines × 2) zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/activemq/ZipkinActiveMQCollectorConfiguration.java:1 — zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/activemq/ZipkinActiveMQCollectorConfiguration.java:1-58 | zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/kafka/ZipkinKafkaCollectorConfiguration.java:1-61 — 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 `zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/activemq/ZipkinActiveMQCollectorConfiguration.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 18 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 18 shared lines) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:284 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:284-337 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:351-392 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:501-544 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:546-584 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:592-645 — These 5 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 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 17 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 17 shared lines) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:82 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:82-119 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:434-464 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:690-719 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:722-752 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 17 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 · Duplicated block (12–17 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–17 lines × 6) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:321 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:321-337 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:381-392 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:420-431 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:528-544 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:573-584 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:634-645 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:321` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:692 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:692-706 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:724-738 — 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 `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:692` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:739` calls `addAnnotation` and `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:707` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 8) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 8) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:108 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:108-117 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:315-324 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:375-384 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:414-423 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:452-462 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:707-717 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:740-750 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:772-781 — all 8 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:108` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note 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 before the matched lines, `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:314` calls `remoteEndpoint` and `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:451` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 4) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:523 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:523-531 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:567-576 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:629-637 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:675-682 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:523` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 3) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:105 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:105-114 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:184-193 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:770-777 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:105` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:542 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java:542-550 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITTraces.java:44-52 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITTraces.java:76-84 — there are 3 copies across 2 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 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:83 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:83-89 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:435-441 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:691-698 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:723-730 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:83` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:352 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:352-359 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:547-554 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:593-600 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:352` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:289 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:289-294 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:355-360 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:506-511 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:550-555 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:596-601 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:289` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:288` calls `suffixServiceName` and `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:353` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 4) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:296 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:296-301 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:513-516 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:561-564 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:765-770 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:296` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:311 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:311-316 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:371-376 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:625-629 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependenciesHeavy.java:75-80 — there are 4 copies across 2 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 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:311` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 5) zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:306 — zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:306-310 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:366-370 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:444-448 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:603-605 | zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:614-616 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java:306` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note 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.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — zipkin-lens/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
R1 · Type Safety · Type Safety · ×1
  • Type Safety — 85 typed · 41 plain JS — the untyped files are zipkin-lens/src/components/App/Layout.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/App/index.js, zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesGraph.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/DependenciesPage.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/DependenciesPage/NodeDetailData.test.jsx, zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.test.jsx (+35 more). 0 production file(s) opt out entirely with @ts-nocheck · 1 @ts-ignore suppression(s).
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (46 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (46 lines × 3 locations) zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteValuesSlice.ts:15 — zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteValuesSlice.ts:15 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/remoteServicesSlice.ts:15 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/spansSlice.ts:15 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:15 — zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:15 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/servicesSlice.ts:15 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 6 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 6 locations) zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:42 — zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteKeysSlice.ts:42 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/autocompleteValuesSlice.ts:44 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/dependenciesSlice.ts:55 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/remoteServicesSlice.ts:44 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:214 — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:214 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:231 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (15 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (15 matched lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:319 — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:319 · zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:339 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 58 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:248 — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:248 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:262 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:43 — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:43 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/MiniTimeline/TimeRangeSelector.tsx:59 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:52 — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:52 · zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:247 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/AnnotationViewer.tsx:65 — zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/AnnotationViewer.tsx:65 · zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanDetailDrawer/TagList.tsx:47 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (11 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (11 matched lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/util/timestamp.js:8 — zipkin-lens/src/util/timestamp.js:8 · zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/trace.js:108 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 60 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.ts:248 — zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.ts:248 · zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.ts:257 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function putTrace (cyclomatic 40, cognitive 75) · ×1
  • Complex function putTrace (cyclomatic 40, cognitive 75) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/dependency-linker.js:73 — putTrace has cyclomatic complexity 40 and cognitive complexity 75; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 33) · ×1
  • Complex function parseAnnotationRows (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 33) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:48 — parseAnnotationRows has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 33; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function mergeV2ById (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 31) · ×1
  • Complex function mergeV2ById (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 31) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:211 — mergeV2ById has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 31; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 23) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:321 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function merge (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 20) · ×1
  • Complex function merge (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 20) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:67 — merge has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function fn (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 34) · ×1
  • Complex function fn (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 34) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/helpers.ts:115 — fn has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 22) zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:300 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function getClockSkew (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Complex function getClockSkew (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 18) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/clock-skew.js:52 — getClockSkew has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function tryMerge (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 13) · ×1
  • Complex function tryMerge (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 13) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:161 — tryMerge has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 17) zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:141 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function clean (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Complex function clean (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 16) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-cleaner.js:24 — clean has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 13) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 13) zipkin-lens/src/zipkin/span-row.js:65 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R3 · Large Files · zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx · ×1
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx: 668 lines of code zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx:1 — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx has 668 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
R3 · Large Files · zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx · ×1
  • zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx: 450 lines of code zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx:1 — zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx has 450 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
R5 · Dependency Freshness · Dependency Freshness · ×1
  • Dependency Freshness — 67 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~81 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~81 LoC) zipkin-lens/src/prop-types/index.js — no import path from any entry point (2 application, 8 tooling, 28 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~5 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~5 LoC) zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/Header/index.ts — no import path from any entry point (2 application, 8 tooling, 28 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@fortawesome/free-brands-svg-icons' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@fortawesome/free-brands-svg-icons' — Declared in zipkin-lens/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@testing-library/user-event' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@testing-library/user-event' — Declared in zipkin-lens/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'enzyme-adapter-react-16' · ×1
  • Unused dependency 'enzyme-adapter-react-16' — Declared in zipkin-lens/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Minor — 219 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×164
  • Orphaned file zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/InMemoryStorage.java: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 zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/DiscoverPageContent.tsx: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java: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 zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchStorage.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/Proto3ZipkinFields.java: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 zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/CassandraSpanStore.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/QueryRequest.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Call.java: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 zipkin-lens/src/components/DiscoverPage/SearchBar/CriterionBox.tsx: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/SpanNode.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1SpanConverter.java: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 zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageConfiguration.java: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 zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinQueryApiV2.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/ReadBuffer.java: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 zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/elasticsearch/ZipkinElasticsearchStorageProperties.java: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 zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/SelectSpansAndAnnotations.java: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 zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/VersionSpecificTemplates.java: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 zipkin-collector/core/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/Collector.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/WriteBuffer.java: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 zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinHttpCollector.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1ThriftSpanWriter.java: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 zipkin-collector/kafka/src/main/java/zipkin2/collector/kafka/KafkaCollector.java: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 zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchSpanStore.java: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 zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/internal/client/HttpCall.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/v1/V1Span.java: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.
  • + 139 more in this group — see findings.md.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×12
  • README/code drift docker/README.md:55 — docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_9042_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docker/README.md:58 — docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_3306_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docker/README.md:61 — docker/README.md documents the environment variable `STORAGE_PORT_9200_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docker/README.md:64 — docker/README.md documents the environment variable `ES_AWS_DOMAIN`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docker/README.md:65 — docker/README.md documents the environment variable `KAFKA_PORT_2181_TCP_ADDR`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-lens/README.md:62 — zipkin-lens/README.md runs `yarn run compile`, but no package.json declares a `compile` script. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-lens/README.md:69 — zipkin-lens/README.md runs `yarn run extract`, but no package.json declares a `extract` script. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-server/README.md:143 — zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `QUERY_LOG_LEVEL`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-server/README.md:144 — zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `QUERY_NAMES_MAX_AGE`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-server/README.md:242 — zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `CASSANDRA_INDEX_CACHE_MAX`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-server/README.md:243 — zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `CASSANDRA_INDEX_CACHE_TTL`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift zipkin-server/README.md:410 — zipkin-server/README.md documents the environment variable `ACTIVEMQ_CLIENT_ID_PREFIX`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Disabled test · ×11
  • Disabled test benchmarks/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/ServerIntegratedBenchmark.java:58 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/brave/ITZipkinSelfTracing.java:75 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-server/src/test/java/zipkin2/server/internal/brave/ITZipkinSelfTracing.java:88 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/test/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/ITCassandraStorage.java:48 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/test/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/internal/call/DeduplicatingInsertTest.java:62 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/test/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/ITMySQLStorage.java:41 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/test/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/ITMySQLStorage.java:45 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/test/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/ITMySQLStorage.java:55 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin-storage/mysql-v1/src/test/java/zipkin2/storage/mysql/v1/ITMySQLStorage.java:70 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin/src/test/java/zipkin2/codec/V1SpanBytesDecoderTest.java:231 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
  • Disabled test zipkin/src/test/java/zipkin2/internal/SpanNodeTest.java:286 — A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×5
  • Duplicated predicate zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectFromSpan.java:74 — `!strictTraceId && traceId.length() == 32` appears character-identically in 2 files — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectFromSpan.java, zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchSpanStore.java. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertTraceByServiceRemoteService.java:51 — `!strictTraceId && trace_id.length() == 32` appears character-identically in 2 files — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertTraceByServiceRemoteService.java, zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/InsertTraceByServiceSpan.java. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java:156 — `key.equals("sa") || key.equals("ca") || key.equals("ma")` appears character-identically in 2 files — zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1JsonSpanReader.java, zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/internal/V1ThriftSpanReader.java. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectRemoteServiceNames.java:33 — `serviceName == null || serviceName.isEmpty()` appears character-identically in 3 files — zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectRemoteServiceNames.java, zipkin-storage/cassandra/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/cassandra/SelectSpanNames.java, zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Endpoint.java. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchVersion.java:36 — `this.major == that.major && this.minor == that.minor` appears character-identically in 2 files — zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchVersion.java, zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/OpensearchVersion.java. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3
  • Most significant orphaned file zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITDependencies.java: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 zipkin-tests/src/main/java/zipkin2/storage/ITSpanStore.java: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 zipkin/src/main/java/zipkin2/Span.java: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.
AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
  • Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — An a11y linter is configured (Documented) but there's no automated a11y test or CI gate. Add vitest-axe to verify at runtime, then gate it in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 48 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.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: zipkin-storage/elasticsearch/src/main/java/zipkin2/elasticsearch/BaseVersion.java. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1
  • Documentation: no project overview docker/test-images/zipkin-eureka/README.md — The README is a directory README describing the zipkin-eureka test image, not an overview of what the repository does. It names no project and gives no rationale for why this Docker image exists. Add a one-line purpose line stating that zipkin-eureka is a service-discovery integration testing image for Zipkin.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • 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/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 13 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.5/10. The most over is `zipkin-lens` (9123 LoC, 86 module-visible types across 21 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 167 of 167 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 167 separate risks. Counted over 167 of the 315 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.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • 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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 22159 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
PF1 · Benchmark discipline · Benchmarks don't track allocations · ×1
  • Benchmarks don't track allocations benchmarks/src/test/java/zipkin2/SpanBenchmarks.java — A JMH/Jetpack Benchmark suite exists but nothing turns on its allocation measurement — allocations (the main way hot code pressures a garbage collector or allocator) aren't being measured.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'ServiceTreeNode' · ×1
  • Unused export 'ServiceTreeNode' zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/types.ts:43 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'ServiceTreeEdge' · ×1
  • Unused export 'ServiceTreeEdge' zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/types.ts:47 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'allColorThemes' · ×1
  • Unused export 'allColorThemes' zipkin-lens/src/constants/color.ts:169 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'formatTimestampMicros' · ×1
  • Unused export 'formatTimestampMicros' zipkin-lens/src/util/timestamp.js:28 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'hasRootSpan' · ×1
  • Unused export 'hasRootSpan' zipkin-lens/src/util/trace.js:23 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Test-only dependency 'redux-mock-store' in production deps · ×1
  • Test-only dependency 'redux-mock-store' in production deps zipkin-lens/package.json:78 — Only test files import it (first: zipkin-lens/src/slices/tracesSlice.test.ts:6) — move it to devDependencies.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×1
  • No security response headers detected docker/test-images/zipkin-ui/nginx.conf:38 — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `nginx.conf` is committed to this repository and declares the server that serves it, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.)
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation · Diagnostic log message is built whether or not it is wanted · ×1
  • Diagnostic log message is built whether or not it is wanted zipkin-server/src/main/java/zipkin2/server/internal/ZipkinActuatorImporter.java:69 — `debug` at line 69 is called with an argument built by `Arrays.toString(includes)` (line 69), whose cost grows with the collection it walks. Java evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE entering the method, so that join/projection runs in full every time this line is reached — and then the level check inside the logger discards the string it produced, because debug is a level a shipped configuration normally leaves off. Nothing here decides beforehand whether the message is wanted: no `isDebugEnabled`/`isTraceEnabled` test, no debug flag, no lambda or `Supplier` the logger calls only when the level is on.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score · ×1
  • Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score — ~0.4 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 3 assertion(s) across the 7852 source line(s) of the 79 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: zipkin-lens/src/components/TracePage/SpanTable/SpanTable.tsx (3). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-8855f1ab73c643cb987b9bdc69cc6238/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-8855f1ab73c643cb987b9bdc69cc6238/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .31artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update26artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .10artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—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.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—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.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—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.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—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.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a16cc0-61cb-71b9-b162-32377617eaf9 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 46 · Warnings: 300 · Recommendations: 219 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 24-10-2026 @ 07:11 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.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md