Public report — CareLink, published 20 Sep 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.15 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_63a12bb7d0284f44b1c3ab3be6141832
Filed 25 September 2026, 05:10 UTC
Public
Medium · 34,150 LoC · 3 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (33%)
Findings by grade
70 critical204 serious8 minor35 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
20 September 2026, 18:11 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
270findings with an exact file:lineof 282 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
33/115dimensions across the health lenses34150 LoC · 3 projects — wide & deep
This system is a workable asset carrying real risk. With an overall health score of 50%, the codebase is functional but fragile. It represents a medium-sized investment, requiring roughly one engineer-year to rebuild at a cost of €36,000. While the underlying logic is valuable, the current operational posture exposes the business to unnecessary delays and defects, particularly in how changes are validated and deployed.
The most critical vulnerability lies in production readiness, which scores a weak 33%. This lens measures whether the system is safe to operate, tested, and observable. A low score here means that even minor updates carry a high risk of causing outages or regressions. The business pays a hidden tax on every change: code quality signals suggest that modifications in weaker areas cost 4–10% more effort than in clean code. This inefficiency compounds annually, costing the team significantly more in engineering time than the cost of fixing the root causes.
A second theme is trust in the delivery pipeline. The test suite currently fails to build, meaning there is no automated safety net. Without a continuous integration workflow that runs tests on every change, the team is flying blind. This lack of verification forces manual effort and increases the likelihood of defects reaching production. The advisory flags indicate that while the code exists, the mechanisms to ensure its correctness are not measured or active, creating a gap between development and reliable release.
On the positive side, the security posture is strong at 87%, and the architecture is reasonably sound at 66%. The code is not bloated with boilerplate, and the core domain modeling is intact. These strengths provide a solid foundation for improvement. However, the lack of documentation maturity (59%) means new team members will face a steep learning curve, further slowing delivery.
The first action must be to add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push. This single step breaks even within six months by reducing the annual drag on engineering time. It is the highest-leverage move because it establishes a baseline of trust. Once this is in place, the team can systematically address documentation and code quality. The current picture is partial, as several key areas like performance and event-driven design were not measured, but the immediate risks are clear and actionable.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
180 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.7× (at 50% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€36,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 33% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — desktop/game × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 33%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
The top fix pays for itself · High · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 3–10 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 18.8–112.8 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~177,362 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–6 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 4–10% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 43,733 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~177,362/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.3/10 ⇒ a 4–10% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Medium effort ⇒ about 3–10 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 6 months.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.3/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 4–10% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.3/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
At a glance — Code Health · 65% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·
Establish a CI workflow to automatically build and test every change, ensuring immediate feedback on code quality. Maintain a changelog to track release history and update the README with a high-level architecture overview to improve onboarding and clarity. Finally, document key design decisions in a structured format to preserve institutional knowledge and guide future development.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
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 — 70
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 — 204
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 — 8
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 35
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. 29 of 33 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 33 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 270 of 282 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry), so no test ever ran. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — it is excluded from the score. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (3 contributor(s) across 1914 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 100% of the history; the other 2 hold 0% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D18 Solution Shape — 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 build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
D18 Solution Shape — 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. A scan analyzes ONE solution. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `CareLink.slnx`; 1 further solution(s) found in this tree (`CareLink.sln`) are not covered by it, were not analyzed, and are not represented in the headline. (This is a count of the solutions discovery found and could not show to be covered by the analyzed one — not a claim about how many solution files the repository contains.) If one of them is an archived or vendored tree, declaring it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — excludes it from discovery the same way generated code is. You can widen what we reach: scan each solution separately.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for src/CareLink/CareLink.vbproj, src/PumpSetup/PumpSetup.vbproj, src/TestProject/TestProject.vbproj, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.
Repo exclusion declarations: 1 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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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.
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 (4): D19, D21, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
40 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables at 102. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being NewMessageBox.MsgBox at 22 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/CareLink/Helpers/NewMessageBox.vb (NewMessageBox.MsgBox at 22). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 35 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables (cyclomatic 102) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Form1UpdateHelpers.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting (cyclomatic 83) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Form1.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy (cyclomatic 56) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with LegacyPdfParser.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 56 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId (cognitive 132) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with SummaryHelpers.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy (cognitive 96) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with LegacyPdfParser.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion (cognitive 90) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with LoginDialog.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 27 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Form1.vb (7), LoginDialog.vb (4), Client2.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with LoginDialog.vb, Form1UpdateHelpers.vb, Client2.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Form1.vb, LoginDialog.vb, Form1UpdateHelpers.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
17 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:72
+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (29–37 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with LoginDialog.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (27–29 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Form1.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling7.3 / 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.
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Coupling in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb, DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.vb, DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 158 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 14 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 144 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Top hotspots: src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb (64×83=5312); src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb (24×102=2448); src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb (42×33=1386) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/CareLink/Extensions/CountryCodes.vb (6 of 11 changes were fixes); src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb (5 of 9 changes were fixes); src/CareLink/Extensions/ClientExtensions.vb (4 of 4 changes were fixes)
Resolve the 21 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with Form1.vb, Form1UpdateHelpers.vb, Client2.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with CountryCodes.vb, ControlExtensions.vb, ClientExtensions.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Resolve the 70 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LoginDialog.vb (27), Form1.vb (6), BitmapCache.vb (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (70 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb (4), DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
3 projects, 304 source files, 36601 hand-written lines of code (34150 production / 2451 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 5949 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 2 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
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.
This CareLink project has two README files (CareLink For Windows and WebView2 bootstrapper) plus architecture/Docs markdown files; the CareLink README is a well-written documentation set with clear sections for description, disclaimer, required settings, an updated date, what's new, and a clip marker. The WebView2 README covers installation options, MSBuild configuration, recommended ZIP contents, and a workflow script, giving it strong setup coverage. However there are no architecture or design docs (the outline lists them but the files do not appear), so the missing-architecture-docs gap is present in the visible documentation set.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md
What to do
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
1 of 3 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
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.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 123 of the 277 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
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.
Resolve the 1 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Form1.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ActiveInsulin.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 4 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a 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.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net9.0
What to do
Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
~34.2k production LoC (296 types) across 2 project(s) / 3 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.
What to do
Introduce deliberate module boundaries — by feature (vertical slices) if your team prefers, or by layer (domain/application/infrastructure). Even splitting into a few cohesive projects with a clear dependency direction would help.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 3 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
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 a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 76 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~2451 lines of test source are present (.vb) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — analyzer environment
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 34k LoC across 3 projects this is a small multi-module codebase that clearly needs boundaries. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.vb) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/ApplicationEvents.vb:57— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:542— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:559— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:189— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:352— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:358— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:393— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:443— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:465— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:586— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:590— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:605— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:823— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:857— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:864— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:868— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:873— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:879— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:885— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:911— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:936— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:942— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:945— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:955— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:960— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
MethodTooLong: Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:403— MethodTooLong — UpdateDataTables runs 360 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 260 over it, 3.60× 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.
MethodTooLong: LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb:36— MethodTooLong — ParseLegacy runs 250 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 150 over it, 2.50× 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.
MethodTooLong: SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb:105— MethodTooLong — TranslateNotificationMessageId runs 214 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 114 over it, 2.14× 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.
MethodTooLong: LoginDialog.CountryComboBox_DrawItem src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:149— MethodTooLong — CountryComboBox_DrawItem runs 195 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 95 over it, 1.95× 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.
MethodTooLong: Client2.GetRecentDataAsync src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:746— MethodTooLong — GetRecentDataAsync runs 179 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 79 over it, 1.79× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.Chart_MouseMove src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:425— MethodTooLong — Chart_MouseMove runs 179 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 79 over it, 1.79× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.UpdateTimeInRange src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5665— MethodTooLong — UpdateTimeInRange runs 175 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.75× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.Dgv_CellFormatting src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:940— MethodTooLong — Dgv_CellFormatting runs 166 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.66× 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.
MethodTooLong: PlotMarkers.PlotMarkers src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:177— MethodTooLong — PlotMarkers runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× 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.
MethodTooLong: LoginHelpers.OptionalLoginUpdateDataAsync src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:77— MethodTooLong — OptionalLoginUpdateDataAsync runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× 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.
MethodTooLong: PlotMarkers.PlotTreatmentMarkers src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:357— MethodTooLong — PlotTreatmentMarkers runs 148 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 48 over it, 1.48× 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.
MethodTooLong: DgvExportHelpers.ToExcelWithFormatting src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:154— MethodTooLong — ToExcelWithFormatting runs 143 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 43 over it, 1.43× 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.
MethodTooLong: PdfSectionParser.ParseAlertsAndUtilities src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:50— MethodTooLong — ParseAlertsAndUtilities runs 138 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.38× 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.
MethodTooLong: LoginDialog.OK_Button_Click src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:642— MethodTooLong — OK_Button_Click runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× 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.
MethodTooLong: LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:816— MethodTooLong — PopulateCountriesForRegion runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1CollectMarkersHelper.CollectMarkers src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb:85— MethodTooLong — CollectMarkers runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× 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.
MethodTooLong: CreateChartItems.CreateChartArea src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/CreateChartItems.vb:170— MethodTooLong — CreateChartArea runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× 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.
MethodTooLong: InitializeDialog.InitializeDialog_Load src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb:203— MethodTooLong — InitializeDialog_Load runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2361— MethodTooLong — DgvSummary_CellFormatting runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.UpdateActiveInsulinChart src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4938— MethodTooLong — UpdateActiveInsulinChart runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× 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.
MethodTooLong: LoginHelpers.SetUpCareLinkUser src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:386— MethodTooLong — SetUpCareLinkUser runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× 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.
MethodTooLong: LoginDialog.LoginForm1_Load src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:482— MethodTooLong — LoginForm1_Load runs 118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.18× 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.UpdateAllTabPages src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5922— MethodTooLong — UpdateAllTabPages runs 118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.18× 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.
MethodTooLong: DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.Paint src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb:562— MethodTooLong — Paint 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.
MethodTooLong: Form1.UpdateDosingAndCarbs src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5290— MethodTooLong — UpdateDosingAndCarbs runs 107 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 7 over it, 1.07× 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.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2361— src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb changed 64 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 83 in Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting at line 2361. 23 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 41 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:403— src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb changed 24 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 102 in Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables at line 403. 9 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 15 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:746— src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb changed 42 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 33 in Client2.GetRecentDataAsync at line 746. 13 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 29 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb:105— src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb changed 17 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 55 in SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId at line 105. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 10 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:816— src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb changed 24 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 36 in LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion at line 816. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 13 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:386— src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb changed 25 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 31 in LoginHelpers.SetUpCareLinkUser at line 386. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 22 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb:213— src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb changed 22 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 21 in JsonExtensions.JsonToDictionary at line 213. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 17 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:177— src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb changed 10 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 28 in PlotMarkers.PlotMarkers at line 177. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb:36— src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb changed 5 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 56 in LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy at line 36. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb:280— src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb changed 18 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in Discover.GetDiscoveryDataAsync at line 280. 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 12 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb:203— src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb changed 9 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 26 in InitializeDialog.InitializeDialog_Load at line 203. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Extensions/DateTimeExtensions.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/DateTimeExtensions.vb:51— src/CareLink/Extensions/DateTimeExtensions.vb changed 12 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in DateTimeExtensions.CultureSpecificParse at line 51. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/DateTimeExtensions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PDFParserUtilities.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PDFParserUtilities.vb:166— src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PDFParserUtilities.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 29 in PDFParserUtilities.GetTableList at line 166. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PDFParserUtilities.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb:85— src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 27 in Form1CollectMarkersHelper.CollectMarkers at line 85. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:154— src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 26 in DgvExportHelpers.ToExcelWithFormatting at line 154. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Extensions/DictionaryExtensions.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/DictionaryExtensions.vb:109— src/CareLink/Extensions/DictionaryExtensions.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 16 in DictionaryExtensions.DictionaryToClass at line 109. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/DictionaryExtensions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/SpeechRecognition1.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/SpeechRecognition1.vb:188— src/CareLink/Helpers/SpeechRecognition1.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in SpeechSupport.SpeechRecognized at line 188. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/SpeechRecognition1.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb:562— src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb changed 3 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 19 in DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.Paint at line 562. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:79— src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 22 in DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue at line 79. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/GetManualBasalPoints.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/GetManualBasalPoints.vb:23— src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/GetManualBasalPoints.vb changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 17 in GetManualBasalPoints.GetManualBasalValues at line 23. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/GetManualBasalPoints.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesSg.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesSg.vb:34— src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesSg.vb changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 16 in PlotSeriesSg.PlotSgSeries at line 34. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesSg.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
ClassTooLong: LoginDialog src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb— ClassTooLong — 924 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 524 over it, 2.31× 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.
ClassTooLong: Form1UpdateHelpers src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb— ClassTooLong — 793 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 393 over it, 1.98× 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.
ClassTooLong: Client2 src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb— ClassTooLong — 693 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 293 over it, 1.73× 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.
ClassTooLong: RegionCountryLists src/CareLink/Extensions/CountryCodes.vb— ClassTooLong — 493 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 5 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 93 over it, 1.23× 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.
ClassTooLong: DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb— ClassTooLong — 489 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 21 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 89 over it, 1.22× 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.
ClassTooLong: SummaryHelpers src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb— ClassTooLong — 448 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 9 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 48 over it, 1.12× 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.
ClassTooLong: LoginHelpers src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb— ClassTooLong — 422 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 10 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.06× 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.
ClassTooLong: InitializeDialog src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb— ClassTooLong — 419 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 19 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.05× 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.
ClassTooLong: CreateChartItems src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/CreateChartItems.vb— ClassTooLong — 407 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 15 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 7 over it, 1.02× 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.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Extensions/CountryCodes.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/CountryCodes.vb:453— src/CareLink/Extensions/CountryCodes.vb changed 11 times in last 90 days and 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is RegionCountryLists.ExtractCulture at line 453), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “More fixes to improve reliability”; “Add Flag support to login Fix ActiveInsulin Estimate to for FLex”; “Add URL display WebView2 Form Fix logic for now US/Clinical servers”; “mprove OAuth token handling and add tests • Fix parsing and storage of access token payload in Client2 and TokenData • Improve token refresh flow and OAuth browser handling in CareLinkService and OAuthBrowserForm • Update country codes and form/logging helper utilities • Add integration and refresh tests for Client2 to cover token lifecycle and download behavior • Minor logging/diagnostic enhancements to aid troubleshooting”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/CountryCodes.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb:127— src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb changed 9 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is ControlExtensions.CenterXOnParent at line 127), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Tiny formatting fixes”; “Fix positioning of Stuff in Form1”; “Name cleanup Move Client from LoginDialog to Form1 to prevent LoginDialog flashing. Fix ActiveInsulin Display on Flex where its not supported”; “Fix crash in second login or login from Menu. Remove Panels that are causing issue is control positioning”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Extensions/ClientExtensions.vb src/CareLink/Extensions/ClientExtensions.vb:25— src/CareLink/Extensions/ClientExtensions.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is ClientExtensions.IsTokenValid at line 25), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fix Token Logging Fix Advnaced AIT messages”; “More fixes to improve reliability”; “Finally fix refresh issue”; “Fix messaging and logginf for Token Expiration Improve WebView2 Deployment.”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Extensions/ClientExtensions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Dialogs/ExceptionHandlerDialog.vb src/CareLink/Dialogs/ExceptionHandlerDialog.vb:257— src/CareLink/Dialogs/ExceptionHandlerDialog.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is ExceptionHandlerDialog.ReportFile at line 257), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “More fixes to improve reliability”; “Update Pump Setup Fix WebView2 build error”; “Fix capitalization of Type names”; “Fix deadlocks”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Dialogs/ExceptionHandlerDialog.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Dialogs/PumpSetupDialog.vb src/CareLink/Dialogs/PumpSetupDialog.vb:55— src/CareLink/Dialogs/PumpSetupDialog.vb changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is PumpSetupDialog.PreparePrintRichTextBox at line 55), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Update Pump Setup Fix WebView2 build error”; “Fix capitalization of Type names”; “Fix deadlocks”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Dialogs/PumpSetupDialog.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/SG.vb src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/SG.vb:33— src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/SG.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is SG.New.ctor at line 33), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fix capitalization of Type names”; “Fix SummaryChart Y1 Axis formating”; “Stable version with support for Flex Many bugs and hangs fixed.”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/SG.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/CareLink/Helpers/FileIoHelpers.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/FileIoHelpers.vb:215— src/CareLink/Helpers/FileIoHelpers.vb changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is FileIoHelpers.SafeDeleteFile at line 215), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fix capitalization of Type names”; “Cache most of the fonts Fix issue with new login process that broke login for some users. Fixed formating of Time where : was separed by a space in addation colon. Added new message to support new CareLink™ API.”; “Stable version with support for Flex Many bugs and hangs fixed.”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 00:59:20 -07:00' --until='2026-09-20 00:59:20 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CareLink/Helpers/FileIoHelpers.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
TodoComment src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb:511— ' TODO: Add code to AutoSize the cell's column, the rows, the column headers — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:92— ' TODO: Call the grid's autosizing methods to autosize the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:172— ' TODO: Call the grid's autosizing methods to autosize the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:268— ' TODO: Call the grid's autosizing methods to autosize the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:218— ' TODO: This column and/or grid rows may need to be autosized — 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.
FileTooLong: Forms/Form1.vb src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb— FileTooLong — 3936 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3436 over it, 7.87× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb— FileTooLong — 928 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 428 over it, 1.86× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb— FileTooLong — 798 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 298 over it, 1.60× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb— FileTooLong — 700 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 200 over it, 1.40× 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.
Low cohesion: DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell (LCOM4 7) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb:11— DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell'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: DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl (LCOM4 5) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.vb:12— DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl'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: DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn (LCOM4 4) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:13— DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn'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.
Appears unstructured (no recognised architecture) — ~34.2k production LoC (296 types) across 2 project(s) / 3 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.
Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables (cyclomatic 102) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:403— Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables has cyclomatic complexity 102 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting (cyclomatic 83) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2361— Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting has cyclomatic complexity 83 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy (cyclomatic 56) src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb:36— LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy has cyclomatic complexity 56 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId (cyclomatic 55) src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb:105— SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId has cyclomatic complexity 55 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.Dgv_CellFormatting (cyclomatic 54) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:940— Form1.Dgv_CellFormatting has cyclomatic complexity 54 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.Chart_MouseMove (cyclomatic 46) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:425— Form1.Chart_MouseMove has cyclomatic complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion (cyclomatic 36) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:816— LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.UpdateActiveInsulinChart (cyclomatic 34) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4938— Form1.UpdateActiveInsulinChart has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Client2.GetRecentDataAsync (cyclomatic 33) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:746— Client2.GetRecentDataAsync has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LoginDialog.LoginForm1_Load (cyclomatic 32) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:482— LoginDialog.LoginForm1_Load has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LoginHelpers.SetUpCareLinkUser (cyclomatic 31) src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:386— LoginHelpers.SetUpCareLinkUser has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.UpdateTimeInRange (cyclomatic 30) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5665— Form1.UpdateTimeInRange has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.EditingControlWantsInputKey (cyclomatic 29) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.vb:169— DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.EditingControlWantsInputKey has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
PDFParserUtilities.GetTableList (cyclomatic 29) src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PDFParserUtilities.vb:166— PDFParserUtilities.GetTableList has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
PlotMarkers.PlotMarkers (cyclomatic 28) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:177— PlotMarkers.PlotMarkers has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LoginDialog.CountryComboBox_DrawItem (cyclomatic 27) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:149— LoginDialog.CountryComboBox_DrawItem has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1CollectMarkersHelper.CollectMarkers (cyclomatic 27) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb:85— Form1CollectMarkersHelper.CollectMarkers has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DgvExportHelpers.ToExcelWithFormatting (cyclomatic 26) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:154— DgvExportHelpers.ToExcelWithFormatting has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
InitializeDialog.InitializeDialog_Load (cyclomatic 26) src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb:203— InitializeDialog.InitializeDialog_Load has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LoginDialog.OK_Button_Click (cyclomatic 26) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:642— LoginDialog.OK_Button_Click has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.UpdateDosingAndCarbs (cyclomatic 26) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5290— Form1.UpdateDosingAndCarbs has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
PlotMarkers.PlotTreatmentMarkers (cyclomatic 26) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:357— PlotMarkers.PlotTreatmentMarkers has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SummaryHelpers.GetSummaryRecords (cyclomatic 25) src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb:357— SummaryHelpers.GetSummaryRecords has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LoginHelpers.OptionalLoginUpdateDataAsync (cyclomatic 24) src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:77— LoginHelpers.OptionalLoginUpdateDataAsync has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue (cyclomatic 22) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:79— DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DgvExportHelpers.CopyToClipboard (cyclomatic 21) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:54— DgvExportHelpers.CopyToClipboard has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
JsonExtensions.JsonToDictionary (cyclomatic 21) src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb:213— JsonExtensions.JsonToDictionary has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.Paint (cyclomatic 19) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb:562— DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.Paint has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue (cyclomatic 19) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:15— DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Client2.DoRefreshAsync (cyclomatic 18) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:583— Client2.DoRefreshAsync has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DgvExportHelpers.SortByColumn (cyclomatic 17) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:371— DgvExportHelpers.SortByColumn has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.DgvSummary_CellMouseClick (cyclomatic 17) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2524— Form1.DgvSummary_CellMouseClick has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GetManualBasalPoints.GetManualBasalValues (cyclomatic 17) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/GetManualBasalPoints.vb:23— GetManualBasalPoints.GetManualBasalValues has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Client2.internalInit (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:387— Client2.internalInit has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DictionaryExtensions.DictionaryToClass (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/Extensions/DictionaryExtensions.vb:109— DictionaryExtensions.DictionaryToClass has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.UpdateNotifyIcon (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4637— Form1.UpdateNotifyIcon has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1.UpdateSensorLife (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5516— Form1.UpdateSensorLife has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
PlotSeriesSg.PlotSgSeries (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesSg.vb:34— PlotSeriesSg.PlotSgSeries has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1UpdateHelpers.HandleComplexItems (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:295— Form1UpdateHelpers.HandleComplexItems has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdatePumpBannerStateTab (cyclomatic 16) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:903— Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdatePumpBannerStateTab has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId (cognitive 132) src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb:105— SummaryHelpers.TranslateNotificationMessageId has cognitive complexity 132 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy (cognitive 96) src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb:36— LegacyPdfParser.ParseLegacy has cognitive complexity 96 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion (cognitive 90) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:816— LoginDialog.PopulateCountriesForRegion has cognitive complexity 90 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoginHelpers.SetUpCareLinkUser (cognitive 80) src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:386— LoginHelpers.SetUpCareLinkUser has cognitive complexity 80 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DgvExportHelpers.ToExcelWithFormatting (cognitive 73) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:154— DgvExportHelpers.ToExcelWithFormatting has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables (cognitive 69) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:403— Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdateDataTables has cognitive complexity 69 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.UpdateTimeInRange (cognitive 59) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5665— Form1.UpdateTimeInRange has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.Chart_MouseMove (cognitive 55) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:425— Form1.Chart_MouseMove has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue (cognitive 53) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:79— DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PlotMarkers.PlotMarkers (cognitive 49) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:177— PlotMarkers.PlotMarkers has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoginDialog.OK_Button_Click (cognitive 48) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:642— LoginDialog.OK_Button_Click has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PlotMarkers.PlotTreatmentMarkers (cognitive 47) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotMarkers.vb:357— PlotMarkers.PlotTreatmentMarkers has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DgvExportHelpers.CopyToClipboard (cognitive 45) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:54— DgvExportHelpers.CopyToClipboard has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoginDialog.CountryComboBox_DrawItem (cognitive 45) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:149— LoginDialog.CountryComboBox_DrawItem has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoginDialog.LoginForm1_Load (cognitive 44) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:482— LoginDialog.LoginForm1_Load has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.UpdateActiveInsulinChart (cognitive 44) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4938— Form1.UpdateActiveInsulinChart has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Client2.GetRecentDataAsync (cognitive 41) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:746— Client2.GetRecentDataAsync has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GetManualBasalPoints.GetManualBasalValues (cognitive 41) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/GetManualBasalPoints.vb:23— GetManualBasalPoints.GetManualBasalValues has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue (cognitive 40) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:15— DeviceSettingsExtensions.GetSingleLineValue has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ControlInspector.GetAllControlsAndNative (cognitive 40) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/ControlInspector.vb:10— ControlInspector.GetAllControlsAndNative has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1UpdateHelpers.HandleComplexItems (cognitive 40) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:295— Form1UpdateHelpers.HandleComplexItems has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.Paint (cognitive 39) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.vb:562— DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell.Paint has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.Dgv_CellFormatting (cognitive 39) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:940— Form1.Dgv_CellFormatting has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SummaryHelpers.GetSummaryRecords (cognitive 39) src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb:357— SummaryHelpers.GetSummaryRecords has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.EditingControlWantsInputKey (cognitive 36) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.vb:169— DataGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl.EditingControlWantsInputKey has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
JsonExtensions.JsonToDictionary (cognitive 36) src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb:213— JsonExtensions.JsonToDictionary has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.UpdateDosingAndCarbs (cognitive 35) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5290— Form1.UpdateDosingAndCarbs has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1CollectMarkersHelper.CollectMarkers (cognitive 35) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb:85— Form1CollectMarkersHelper.CollectMarkers has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoginHelpers.OptionalLoginUpdateDataAsync (cognitive 35) src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/LoginHelpers.vb:77— LoginHelpers.OptionalLoginUpdateDataAsync has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
InitializeDialog.InitializeDialog_Load (cognitive 30) src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb:203— InitializeDialog.InitializeDialog_Load has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.Dgv_DataBindingComplete (cognitive 30) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:1145— Form1.Dgv_DataBindingComplete has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.ServerUpdateTimer_Tick (cognitive 30) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4163— Form1.ServerUpdateTimer_Tick has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PlotSeriesSg.PlotSgSeries (cognitive 27) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesSg.vb:34— PlotSeriesSg.PlotSgSeries has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.MenuStartLoadExceptionReport_Click (cognitive 26) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:3079— Form1.MenuStartLoadExceptionReport_Click has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.UpdateSensorLife (cognitive 26) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5516— Form1.UpdateSensorLife has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Client2.internalInit (cognitive 25) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:387— Client2.internalInit has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.UpdateNotifyIcon (cognitive 25) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4637— Form1.UpdateNotifyIcon has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Client2.DoRefreshAsync (cognitive 24) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:583— Client2.DoRefreshAsync has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DgvCellStyleHelpers.CellFormattingSg (cognitive 24) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvCellStyleHelpers.vb:237— DgvCellStyleHelpers.CellFormattingSg has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1UpdateHelpers.ToSgList (cognitive 23) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:153— Form1UpdateHelpers.ToSgList has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SpeechSupport.SpeechRecognized (cognitive 23) src/CareLink/Helpers/SpeechRecognition1.vb:188— SpeechSupport.SpeechRecognized has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
UpdateChecker.CheckForUpdatesAsync (cognitive 23) src/CareLink/Utilities/UpdateChecker.vb:161— UpdateChecker.CheckForUpdatesAsync has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BitmapCache.ReplaceTempBitmap (cognitive 22) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/BitmapCache.vb:196— BitmapCache.ReplaceTempBitmap has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoggerForm.UpdateLogMessage (cognitive 20) src/CareLink/Forms/LoggerForm.vb:51— LoggerForm.UpdateLogMessage has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdatePumpBannerStateTab (cognitive 20) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1UpdateHelpers.vb:903— Form1UpdateHelpers.UpdatePumpBannerStateTab has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Discover.GetConfigJson (cognitive 20) src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb:39— Discover.GetConfigJson has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Discover.GetDiscoveryDataAsync (cognitive 20) src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb:280— Discover.GetDiscoveryDataAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DgvExportHelpers.SortByColumn (cognitive 19) src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvExportHelpers.vb:371— DgvExportHelpers.SortByColumn has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DateTimeExtensions.CultureSpecificParse (cognitive 19) src/CareLink/Extensions/DateTimeExtensions.vb:51— DateTimeExtensions.CultureSpecificParse has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting (cognitive 19) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2361— Form1.DgvSummary_CellFormatting has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DictionaryExtensions.DictionaryToClass (cognitive 18) src/CareLink/Extensions/DictionaryExtensions.vb:109— DictionaryExtensions.DictionaryToClass has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
JsonExtensions.JsonToListOfDictionary (cognitive 18) src/CareLink/Extensions/JsonExtensions.vb:320— JsonExtensions.JsonToListOfDictionary has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CareLinkService.ResolveEndpointConfigFromDiscoveryAsync (cognitive 18) src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/CareLinkService.vb:65— CareLinkService.ResolveEndpointConfigFromDiscoveryAsync has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Client2.GetDataAsync (cognitive 17) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:144— Client2.GetDataAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DebugSupport.DebugPrintUrl (cognitive 17) src/CareLink/Extensions/DebugPrint.vb:47— DebugSupport.DebugPrintUrl has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.UpdateAutoModeShield (cognitive 17) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5136— Form1.UpdateAutoModeShield has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
UpdateChecker.GetVersionString (cognitive 17) src/CareLink/Utilities/UpdateChecker.vb:66— UpdateChecker.GetVersionString has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ControlExtensions.CenterXOnParent (cognitive 16) src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb:127— ControlExtensions.CenterXOnParent has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DeliverySettings.DeliverySettings1BolusWizardSetup (cognitive 16) src/CareLink/Extensions/PumpSetup/DeliverySettings.vb:9— DeliverySettings.DeliverySettings1BolusWizardSetup has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form1.GetSubTitle (cognitive 16) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:4802— Form1.GetSubTitle has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PlotSuspend.PlotSuspendArea (cognitive 16) src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSuspend.vb:24— PlotSuspend.PlotSuspendArea has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TooManyMethods: Form1 src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb— TooManyMethods — 3923 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 134 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 104 over it, 4.47× 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.
Change-coupling hub: Form1.vb → DgvCellStyleHelpers.vb, DgvColumnEventArgsExtensions.vb, InitializeDialog.vb, ControlExtensions.vb, DateTimeExtensions.vb, DrawingExtensions.vb, MathExtensions.vb, StringExtensions.vb, TimeZoneExtensions.vb, CalloutHelpers.vb, PaintMarkerExtensions.vb, PlotSeriesBasal.vb, ColorDictionaryHelpers.vb, ExceptionHelpers.vb, FileIoHelpers.vb, Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb, CareLinkService.vb, OAuthBrowserForm.vb, LegacyPdfParser.vb, RunningActiveInsulinHelpers.vb, SummaryHelpers.vb, TimeConstants.vb, PumpVariables.vb, SystemVariables.vb, ItemIndexesModule.vb, Discover.vb, FileUtilities.vb src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb— `src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb` changes together with 27 other files — `src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvCellStyleHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/DataGrivView Helpers/DgvColumnEventArgsExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Dialogs/InitializeDialog.vb`, `src/CareLink/Extensions/ControlExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Extensions/DateTimeExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Extensions/DrawingExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Extensions/MathExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Extensions/StringExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Extensions/TimeZoneExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/CalloutHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PaintMarkerExtensions.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/Charting/PlotSeriesBasal.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/ColorHelpers/ColorDictionaryHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/ExceptionHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/FileIoHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/CareLinkService.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/LoginHelpers/OAuthBrowserForm.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/LegacyPdfParser.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/RunningActiveInsulinHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/SummaryHelpers.vb`, `src/CareLink/ProgramVariables/Constants/TimeConstants.vb`, `src/CareLink/ProgramVariables/PumpVariables.vb`, `src/CareLink/ProgramVariables/SystemVariables.vb`, `src/CareLink/Records/Pump Records/ItemIndexesModule.vb`, `src/CareLink/Utilities/Discover.vb`, `src/CareLink/Utilities/FileUtilities.vb` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 27 separate couplings, not 27 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 27.
Change coupling: ActiveInsulin.vb ↔ Limit.vb src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/ActiveInsulin.vb— `src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/ActiveInsulin.vb` and `src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/Limit.vb` change together 62% of the time (8 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `b14ea7fb` Simplify amd consolidate RoundSingle logic; `fcd8a718` Prevent Crash is SgMiniForm Add Arguement Names Fake support for Dark…; `d8e74a78` Improve display of standard Deviation (at that commit the files were still `src/CareLink/Records/Pump Records/ActiveInsulinRecord.vb` and `src/CareLink/Records/Pump Records/LimitsRecord.vb`) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:72— src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:72-94 | src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:118-128 | src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:160-174 | src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:206-222 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (29–37 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:225— src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:225-261 | src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:302-330 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:225` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (27–29 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2004— src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:2004-2030 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PatientDataHelpers/NotificationHelpers.vb:85-113 — 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 (27 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:21— src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:21-47 | src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/DeviceSettingsExtensions.vb:92-118 — 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 (20 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/BitmapCache.vb:113— src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/BitmapCache.vb:113-132 | src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/BitmapCache.vb:210-229 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/BitmapCache.vb:135` calls `CType`, `Clone` and `src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/BitmapCache.vb:230` 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 (19 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Records/PdfRecords/HighAlertRecord.vb:11— src/CareLink/Records/PdfRecords/HighAlertRecord.vb:11-29 | src/CareLink/Records/PdfRecords/LowAlertRecord.vb:14-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:768— src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:768-785 | src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:836-852 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9–17 lines × 4) src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:72— src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:72-88 | src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:118-126 | src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:160-168 | src/CareLink/CustomControls/DataGridViewNumericUpDown/DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn.vb:206-214 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5559— src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5559-5574 | src/CareLink/Forms/Form1.vb:5631-5646 — 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 (15 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:570— src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:570-584 | src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:895-909 — 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 (14 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Extensions/SgExtensions.vb:45— src/CareLink/Extensions/SgExtensions.vb:45-58 | src/CareLink/Helpers/Form1Helpers/Form1CollectMarkersHelper.vb:33-46 — 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 (13 lines × 2) src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:751— src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:751-763 | src/CareLink/CareLinkCommunications/Client2.vb:875-887 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:1089— src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:1089-1100 | src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:1135-1146 — 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 (11 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/HighAlertRecordExtensions.vb:16— src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/HighAlertRecordExtensions.vb:16-27 | src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/LowAlertRecordExtensions.vb:17-27 — 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 (9 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:208— src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:208-216 | src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:285-293 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CareLink/Dialogs/LoginDialog.vb:208` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/PresetBolusRecordExtensions.vb:14— src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/PresetBolusRecordExtensions.vb:14-21 | src/CareLink/Extensions/PdfParseExtensions/PresetTempRecordExtensions.vb:13-20 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:67— src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:67-74 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:75-81 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:82-89 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:90-97 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:98-104 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:105-112 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:161-166 | src/CareLink/Helpers/PDF DeviceSettings/PdfParser/PdfSectionParser.vb:167-172 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/BasalPerHour.vb:35— src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/BasalPerHour.vb:35-41 | src/CareLink/Records/PatientData/InsulinlPerHour.vb:44-50 — 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.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net9.0 — JsonDeserializationWithException/JsonDeserializationWithException.csproj declares .NET net9.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET 9 STS, support ended 2026-05-12. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2026-05-12 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
Off the main sequence: CareLink — CareLink: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md— There are no build/run instructions for developers, such as how to rebuild after changing a package reference or clear bin manually. Add a short 'Build/Rebuild' section noting the MSBuild targets and how to copy WebView2 DLLs into bin when bin is cleared.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md— There are no usage examples, such as how to run the app or open a Flex PDF report. Add an 'How to Run' section showing a minimal runnable example (e.g. opening the main form) and a link to the What's New page.
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 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 3.3/10. The most over is `CareLink` (33908 LoC, 190 public types across 1 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
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.)
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
0
—
Run 01a0c004-0370-723f-bdc6-16c127a0c235 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 70 · Warnings: 204 · Recommendations: 8 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 20-09-2026 @ 18:11 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.