Public report of pointfreeco/swift-composable-architecture, published 26 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 26 October 2026, 09:07 UTC · Survey ID cd_513b8ab683d3424ca301840e0c4c0a33
pointfreeco/swift-composable-architecture
Measured 26 October 2026, 09:03 UTC, at code version bc2db5b
No regression since the last survey
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
No change since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 53,230 lines of product code in 2 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.6 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 51
Findings by how serious they are
13 critical367 serious209 minor
35 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
26 October 2026, 09:03 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
42of 42 dimensions measured by tools.
554of 589 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 35 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
42dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 53,230 lines of product code in 2 projects.
pointfreeco/swift-composable-architecture falls short of our standard for production because we found no automated security scanning of the code, its secrets or its dependencies. It scores 62 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and all 13 of its critical findings are security problems.
Production Readiness, at 51, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is fixing the password or key in the code, worth about 8 points. Updating or replacing each dependency with a known problem comes next, worth about 6 points. Raising Production Readiness to 70 would lift the score to about 69.
Ten pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Two secrets can leak from the build pipeline, and one password or key is open to anyone who can read the repository. Replacing the exposed password or key, pinning each tool to an exact version and limiting each secret to its own step would close these risks.
The product code is 53,230 lines, about €84,000 to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 2 findings
These 2 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €84,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€28,000 to €140,000, for 464 to 1,473 hours of work, about 0.6 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.9 at a score of 62. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 53,230 lines of product code
What it is not
Not a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED.
Raises the score by about 8 points · Low effort · Secret Scanning
2
Resolve the 1 Dependency not covered by the committed resolution finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €84,000 to build again, about 0.6 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 51 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Secret Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways, which only happens where the projects form a dependency cycle. A graph without cycles has none.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
2 modules, with 2 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 2 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
ComposableArchitectureMacros uses ComposableArchitecture, so a change to ComposableArchitecture can break ComposableArchitectureMacros, while a change to ComposableArchitectureMacros can't break ComposableArchitecture.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
31 pairs of types, where a type in ComposableArchitecture uses a type in ComposableArchitectureMacros. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
ComposableArchitecture uses ComposableArchitectureMacros, so a change to ComposableArchitectureMacros can break ComposableArchitecture, while a change to ComposableArchitecture can't break ComposableArchitectureMacros.
Position
Below the diagonal: ComposableArchitecture uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
13
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
7
Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
1
High / Critical
Roadmap
Immediately resolve the leaked secret in REDACTED and the uncovered dependency issue to eliminate critical security and maintenance risks. Integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to prevent future regressions from reaching production. Concurrently, remove 42 orphaned files to clean up the codebase and begin documenting key architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve institutional knowledge.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Resolve the 42 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift, ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift, ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift.
Resolve the 128 No direct assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ReducerMacroTests.swift (28), ViewActionMacroTests.swift (12), TodosTests.swift (10).
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 — 13
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 — 367
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 — 209
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. 42 of 42 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 42 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, 554 of 589 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo. In the meantime, commit (or publish into the working tree) the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and the real number is read on the next scan. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces, and the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.swift) and this repository declares a SwiftPM test suite (3 packages), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
D24 Comment Value — 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's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/00-RootView.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-AlertsAndConfirmationDialogs.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Animations.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Basics.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Forms.swift`, … (+138 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and this repository's container is swift-dependencies, whose lifetimes are not modelled yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P1 CI/CD gates — 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 CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
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.
P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
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.
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.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ReducerMacro._expansion (cyclomatic 42). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.4 to about 8.8/10.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 3 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ReducerMacro._expansion (cognitive 81), ReducerMacro.expansion (cognitive 46), RootCore._send (cognitive 31). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.6 to about 8.6/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.5 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ 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 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Deprecations.swift, Store+Observation.swift, ReducerMacro.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ReducerMacro.swift, StackReducer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
262 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 31 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 36 of the 293 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, project-template, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
+ 156 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 16 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Deprecations.swift (8), TestStore.swift (2), Effect.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 10 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Deprecations.swift (2), Models.swift, SyncUpForm.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Deprecations.swift (4), RecordMeeting.swift, Store+Observation.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
2 production modules (SwiftPM), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 1 of the 2 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
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 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Extensions.swift, Store.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
157 test methods: 156 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 1 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
1 skipped (1 with a documented reason), 143 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 157 tests (7 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).
No assertions: testBindableStore · ×15Tests/ComposableArchitectureTests/BindableStoreTests.swift:8
Test project verifies nothing: AppCoreTests · ×7Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/AppCoreTests/AppCoreTests.swift:11
No direct assertions: testBasics · ×128Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/PresentsMacroTests.swift:18
Test project verifies nothing: ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests · ×4Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/PresentsMacroTests.swift:18
Resolve the 128 No direct assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ReducerMacroTests.swift (28), ViewActionMacroTests.swift (12), TodosTests.swift (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (128 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 15 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with EffectCancellationIsolationTests.swift (2), AppCoreTests.swift (2), GameCoreTests.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AppCoreTests.swift, GameCoreTests.swift, LoginCoreTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
26 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 1 pinning defect(s). 33 of 35 direct dependencies had their releases listed (0 naming no readable repository, 2 pinned to a branch or a revision rather than a version). SwiftPM has no package registry: a dependency is a repository URL and its releases are that repository's semver tags, so currency is answered by listing tags rather than by querying an index. Only a newer tag on the SAME MAJOR is reported — a `from:` requirement admits everything below the next major and nothing above it, so a major crossing needs a Package.swift edit rather than an update, and naming the update as its remedy would be wrong. Whether any dependency is DEPRECATED or ABANDONED is not graded and cannot be: a repository publishes no such marker, and there is no registry that could carry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.
Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: swift-issue-reporting
Outdated: combine-schedulers · ×23
What to do
Resolve the 1 Dependency not covered by the committed resolution finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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 27 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 26 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 1 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed Package.resolved pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins. 2 of them are declared by a manifest that commits no Package.resolved (a library, whose resolution is its consumer's), so their own dependencies are resolved by whoever builds it and are not in this verdict.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
5 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/DependencyKeyWritingReducer.swift. Counted over 80 of the 543 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
24 deducted task-comment markers across 53230 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Resolve the 24 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with OldPresentsNewTests.swift (4), ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift (2), ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
1 of 1 build units (SwiftPM) 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).
13 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 10 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 10 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
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.
42 of 80 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift. Counted over 80 of the 543 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Resolve the 42 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift, ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift, ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (42 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Concentrated knowledge decay finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Package.swift. — 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 the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a README to the 2 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.3 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.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ 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.
What to do
Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`xcodebuild test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6507 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 1 use(s) across 41,287 production line(s) (~0.0/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 3 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.
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 — 73 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 — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No Swift request handler (a Vapor, Hummingbird, Kitura, Swifter or Perfect route handler, as a method or a registered closure) is declared, so no state is shared between request threads.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .swift suite was found but not re-run
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D19 Documentation Quality — No runnable or published unit to look for an example in, and no multi-project root README to look for a map in; the other documentation kinds are withheld (see the gaps), so documentation quality is not applicable here.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Swift not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Swift surface was not measured.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .swift, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.swift), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 143 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — Swift suite
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
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
M4 Documentation accuracy — Not applicable: the 1 current-state document(s) make no claim of a kind M4 checks.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — 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
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) 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
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 — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — 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
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern 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
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — 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 asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. Swift has no `++` or `--`, and an assignment yields `()`, which cannot be an operand of `&&`, `||` or `?:` nor the Bool a `case … where` clause needs. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — 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
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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
X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — Not applicable: this check looks for a loop whose body adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking, invalidating the enumerator it holds, and in this repository's languages that cannot happen. Swift's `Array`, `Dictionary` and `Set` are values: `for x in items` walks the copy taken when the loop starts, so a body that adds to or removes from `items` changes a different value, nothing is invalidated, and every original element is still visited. This repository's Swift names no Foundation mutable collection (`NSMutableArray` and kin), the one kind a Swift loop can walk by reference. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
TodoComment Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/PresentsMacro.swift:48— // TODO: _modify accessor? — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:2519— // TODO: Move to `swift-issue-reporting`? — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:114— // TODO: Eager? — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0000.swift:22— // TODO: Handle action — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0000.swift:14— // TODO: Handle action — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0001.swift:15— // TODO: Handle action — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0002.swift:16— // TODO: Handle action — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0003.swift:16— // TODO: Handle action — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0004.swift:16— // TODO: Handle action — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:33— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:39— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:34— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:40— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:40— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:46— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:40— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:46— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:40— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:46— // TODO: Alert to confirm ending meeting — 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 Examples/SyncUps/SyncUpsTests/SyncUpDetailTests.swift:121— // TODO: Can this exhaustively be caught? — 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 Examples/Integration/IntegrationUITests/iOS 16+17/OldPresentsNewTests.swift:29— // TODO: Flakey test — 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 Examples/Integration/IntegrationUITests/iOS 16+17/OldPresentsNewTests.swift:53— // TODO: Flakey test — 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 Examples/Integration/IntegrationUITests/iOS 16+17/OldPresentsNewTests.swift:86— // TODO: Flakey test — 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 Examples/Integration/IntegrationUITests/iOS 16+17/OldPresentsNewTests.swift:131— // TODO: Flakey test — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:249— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:249-256 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:384-391 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:249` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:493— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:493-500 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3315-3322 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:493` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:978— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:978-985 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1012-1019 — 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, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:986` calls `elseContent` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1020` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2056— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2056-2063 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2231-2238 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2056` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2233— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2233-2240 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2274-2281 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2233` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3384— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3384-3391 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3764-3771 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3384` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3772` calls `Duration` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3392` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3709— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3709-3716 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1591-1598 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3709` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3717` calls `Duration` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1599` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3708— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3708-3715 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3763-3770 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3708` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:333— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:333-340 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:709-716 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:333` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:529— Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:529-536 | Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:617-624 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:529` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2578— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2578-2585 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:191-198 — 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 (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:273— Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:273-285 | Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:155-162 — 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 (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0007.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0007.swift:23-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0008.swift:23-30 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0008.swift:32` calls `receive`, `StackState` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0007.swift:31` 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 (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1296— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1296-1303 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1316-1323 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1296` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1487— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1487-1494 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1507-1514 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1487` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/NavigationTestCase.swift:36— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/NavigationTestCase.swift:36-43 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableNavigationTestCase.swift:41-48 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `state` to `BasicsView.Feature.State()` in one and `ObservableBasicsView.Feature.State()` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
No assertions: testBindableStore Tests/ComposableArchitectureTests/BindableStoreTests.swift:8— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testIsolation1 Tests/ComposableArchitectureTests/EffectCancellationIsolationTests.swift:7— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testIsolation2 Tests/ComposableArchitectureTests/EffectCancellationIsolationTests.swift:19— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: integration Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/AppCoreTests/AppCoreTests.swift:11— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: twoFactor Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/AppCoreTests/AppCoreTests.swift:44— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: winnerQuits Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/GameCoreTests/GameCoreTests.swift:7— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: tie Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/GameCoreTests/GameCoreTests.swift:36— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: twoFactorSuccess Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/LoginCoreTests/LoginCoreTests.swift:9— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: twoFactorDismissInFlight Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/LoginCoreTests/LoginCoreTests.swift:49— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: integration Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/NewGameCoreTests/NewGameCoreTests.swift:8— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: happyPath Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/TwoFactorCoreTests/TwoFactorCoreTests.swift:8— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: unhappyPath Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/TwoFactorCoreTests/TwoFactorCoreTests.swift:39— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: countDown Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudiesTests/UIKitCaseStudiesTests.swift:6— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: countDownList Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudiesTests/UIKitCaseStudiesTests.swift:21— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: focus Examples/CaseStudies/tvOSCaseStudiesTests/FocusTests.swift:6— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×10
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Models.swift:49— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Models.swift:49-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0002.swift:48-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0003.swift:49-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:50-58 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:106— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:106-120 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004-previous.swift:64-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:65-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:52-66 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001-previous.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:12-34 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift:8-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0004.swift:8-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0005.swift:8-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:8-32 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0005.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0005.swift:8-22 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0006.swift:8-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0007.swift:8-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0008.swift:8-35 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0004.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0004.swift:8-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0005.swift:8-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0006-previous.swift:8-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0006.swift:8-31 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0005.swift:20— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0005.swift:20-40 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0006.swift:20-40 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0015-previous.swift:19-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0015.swift:20-40 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift:9— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0004.swift:9-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0005.swift:9-22 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0006.swift:9-28 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1075— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1075-1127 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1129-1187 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:283-321 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift:23-77 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2054— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2054-2095 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2107-2150 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:5-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:40-76 — 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 (9 lines × 2) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:87— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:87-95 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:75-83 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 141 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:87` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. 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 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2122— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2122-2130 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:49-57 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2122` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3084— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3084-3092 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/ForEachReducer.swift:133-141 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3084` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3120— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3120-3128 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:372-380 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3120` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3239— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3239-3247 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:402-410 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3239` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:233— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:233-241 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:292-300 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:233` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0004.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0004.swift:8-16 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0005.swift:8-38 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 90% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0002.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0002.swift:8-16 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0001.swift:9-17 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:2088— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:2088-2096 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:2179-2187 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:2088` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0002.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0002.swift:8-22 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift:8-22 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0002.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift:24` calls `send`, `onDeleteAttendees`, `removeFirst` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0002.swift:23` 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 (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift:8-22 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift:8-22 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1711— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1711-1725 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1740-1754 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1711` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3268— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3268-3282 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:427-441 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3268` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/IfCaseLetReducer.swift:119— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/IfCaseLetReducer.swift:119-133 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/IfLetReducer.swift:137-151 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/IfCaseLetReducer.swift:119` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:463— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:463-477 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:423-437 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:463` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:505— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:505-519 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:525-539 — 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) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:17— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:17-31 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservablePresentationTestCase.swift:12-26 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:17` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservablePresentationTestCase.swift:11` calls `log` and `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:16` 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 (10 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1938— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1938-1947 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2338-2347 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1938` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3178— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3178-3187 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/IfLetReducer.swift:62-71 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3178` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/IfLetReducer.swift:72` calls `AnyCasePath` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3188` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0002.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0002.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0003.swift:8-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0002.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0002.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0003.swift:8-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/LoadThenNavigate.swift:67— Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/LoadThenNavigate.swift:67-76 | Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/NavigateAndLoad.swift:63-72 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/LoadThenNavigate.swift:67` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Examples/SpeechRecognition/SpeechRecognition/SpeechClient/Live.swift:51— Examples/SpeechRecognition/SpeechRecognition/SpeechClient/Live.swift:51-60 | Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Dependencies/SpeechRecognizer.swift:151-160 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SpeechRecognition/SpeechRecognition/SpeechClient/Live.swift:51` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `UncheckedSendable<SFSpeechAudioBufferRecognitionRequest>` in one and `SFSpeechAudioBufferRecognitionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1168— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1168-1177 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1243-1252 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Basics.swift:107— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Basics.swift:107-116 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Forms.swift:93-102 — 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.
D10 · Test Quality· Test project verifies nothing · ×7
Test project verifies nothing: AppCoreTests Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/AppCoreTests/AppCoreTests.swift:11— No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `AppCoreTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: GameCoreTests Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/GameCoreTests/GameCoreTests.swift:7— No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `GameCoreTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: LoginCoreTests Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/LoginCoreTests/LoginCoreTests.swift:9— No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `LoginCoreTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: NewGameCoreTests Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/NewGameCoreTests/NewGameCoreTests.swift:8— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `NewGameCoreTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: TwoFactorCoreTests Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Tests/TwoFactorCoreTests/TwoFactorCoreTests.swift:8— No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `TwoFactorCoreTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: UIKitCaseStudiesTests Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudiesTests/UIKitCaseStudiesTests.swift:6— No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `UIKitCaseStudiesTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: tvOSCaseStudiesTests Examples/CaseStudies/tvOSCaseStudiesTests/FocusTests.swift:6— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `tvOSCaseStudiesTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:40— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:40-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0002.swift:40-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0003.swift:40-54 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:40` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:48— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:50-64 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 207 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:48` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007.swift:34— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007.swift:34-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000-previous.swift:36-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000.swift:37-51 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007.swift:34` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1098— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1098-1112 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1156-1170 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift:57-71 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1098` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1154` calls `SwitchStore` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1097` 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 (15 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0003.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0003.swift:8-22 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0004.swift:8-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0007-previous.swift:8-22 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0003.swift:14— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0003.swift:14-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0000-previous.swift:14-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0000.swift:19-33 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0000-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:163— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:163-177 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift:162-176 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-UserDefaults.swift:159-173 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift` and `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:163` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0005.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0005.swift:8-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008-previous.swift:8-21 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1084— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1084-1097 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1139-1152 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1084` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1154` calls `SwitchStore` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1098` 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 (14 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3850— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3850-3863 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3879-3892 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3850` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:413— Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:413-426 | Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:444-457 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:413` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:71— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:71-84 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0006-previous.swift:13-26 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0006-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 93% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:71` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:63— Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:63-76 | Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:164-177 — 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 `Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:63` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:77` calls `ButtonState`, `TextState` and `Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:178` 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 (14 lines × 2) Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/NewGameUIKit/NewGameViewController.swift:71— Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/NewGameUIKit/NewGameViewController.swift:71-84 | Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/TwoFactorUIKit/TwoFactorViewController.swift:49-62 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/NewGameUIKit/NewGameViewController.swift:71` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift:22— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift:22-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0006.swift:22-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift:22` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0007.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0007.swift:8-18 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0008.swift:8-18 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0007.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:360— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:360-370 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:743-753 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:360` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0003.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0003.swift:8-18 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0002.swift:9-19 — 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 (11 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/04-NavigationStack.swift:290— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/04-NavigationStack.swift:290-300 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/04-NavigationStack.swift:428-438 — 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 `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/04-NavigationStack.swift:290` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/LoginSwiftUI/LoginView.swift:75— Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/LoginSwiftUI/LoginView.swift:75-85 | Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/TwoFactorSwiftUI/TwoFactorView.swift:59-69 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/TicTacToe/tic-tac-toe/Sources/LoginSwiftUI/LoginView.swift:75` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (27 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5
Members sharing a duplicated core (27 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:157— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:157-194 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:26-61 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:27-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:42-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:43-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:46-82 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:47-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:51-87 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:52-88 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:56-92 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:65-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:68-104 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:68-104 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:70-106 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:69-105 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:70-106 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:69-105 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:69-105 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:77-113 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:78-114 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:84-120 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:85-121 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:85-122 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:105-142 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:120-157 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:123-160 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:26-61 — These 27 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 27 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 27 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (27 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:242— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:242-266 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:69-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:71-95 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:86-110 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:87-111 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:90-114 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:91-115 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:95-119 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:96-120 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:100-124 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:109-133 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:112-136 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:112-136 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:114-138 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:113-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:114-138 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:113-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:113-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:121-145 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:122-146 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:128-152 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:129-153 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:130-154 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:150-174 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:165-189 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:168-192 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:69-93 — These 27 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 27 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 27 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (27 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:299— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:299-329 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:126-156 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:128-158 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:143-173 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:144-174 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:147-177 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:148-178 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:152-182 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:153-183 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:157-187 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:166-196 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:169-199 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:169-199 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:171-201 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:170-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:171-201 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:170-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:170-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:178-208 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:179-209 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:185-215 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:186-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:187-217 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:207-237 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:222-252 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:225-255 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:126-156 — These 27 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 27 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 27 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (27 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:336— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:336-349 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:163-176 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:165-178 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:180-193 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:181-194 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:184-197 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:185-198 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:189-202 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:190-203 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:194-207 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:203-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:206-219 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:206-219 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:208-221 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:207-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:208-221 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:207-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:207-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:215-228 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:216-229 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:222-235 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:223-236 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:224-237 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:244-257 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:259-272 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:262-275 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:163-176 — These 27 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 27 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 27 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (27 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:367— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:367-382 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:194-209 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:196-211 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:211-226 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:212-227 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:215-230 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:216-231 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:220-235 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:221-236 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:225-240 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:234-249 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:237-252 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:237-252 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:239-254 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:238-253 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:239-254 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:238-253 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:238-253 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:246-261 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:247-262 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:253-268 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:254-269 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:255-270 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:275-290 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:290-305 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:293-308 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:194-209 — These 27 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 27 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 27 times.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/TestingListOfSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/TestingListOfSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:8-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001-previous.swift:40-58 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/TestingListOfSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift:26— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift:26-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0005.swift:26-44 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift:26` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:19— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:19-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:19-37 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 99 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:19` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:19— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:19-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:19-37 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 99 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:19` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:24— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:24-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0004.swift:24-42 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 50 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:24` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift:8-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift:8-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:36— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:36-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift:36-51 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:36` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift:53` calls `sleep`, `seconds` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:52` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0007.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0007.swift:8-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0009.swift:8-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0009.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:84— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:84-99 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservablePresentationTestCase.swift:77-92 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/PresentationTestCase.swift:84` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/SiblingTestCase.swift:22— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/SiblingTestCase.swift:22-37 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableSiblingTestCase.swift:24-39 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/SiblingTestCase.swift:22` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableSiblingTestCase.swift:44` calls `id`, `UUID` and `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/SiblingTestCase.swift:38` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:988— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:988-992 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1021-1025 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:988` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:986` calls `elseContent` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1019` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:90— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:90-94 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:107-111 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:90` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:189— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:189-193 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:206-210 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:189` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:314— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:314-318 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:332-336 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:314` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2169— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2169-2173 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2923-2927 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2169` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
FileTooLong: Internal/Deprecations.swift Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift— FileTooLong — 2965 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2465 over it, 5.93× 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: Observation/Store+Observation.swift Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift— FileTooLong — 676 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 176 over it, 1.35× 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: ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift— FileTooLong — 628 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 1.26× 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: ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift— FileTooLong — 503 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.01× 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.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:38— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:38-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:39-65 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:47— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:47-73 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0005.swift:45-71 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 74 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:47` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:866— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:866-892 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:916-942 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:866` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2069— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2069-2095 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2124-2150 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2069` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:12-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 50 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:263— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:263-285 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:298-320 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:263` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:94— Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:94-116 | Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/LegacyPresentationTestCase.swift:119-141 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/EnumTestCase.swift:30— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/EnumTestCase.swift:30-52 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableEnumTestCase.swift:15-37 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/EnumTestCase.swift:30` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:44— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:44-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:43-61 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 119 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:5— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:5-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006-previous.swift:5-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006.swift:5-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:5` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:35— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:35-53 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift:34-52 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-UserDefaults.swift:31-49 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift` and `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1341— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1341-1359 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1532-1550 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1634-1652 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1341` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:23-40 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:24-41 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 176 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:29— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:29-46 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:29-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 207 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:29` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0002.swift:28— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0002.swift:28-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0001.swift:36-53 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0001.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0002.swift:28` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:959— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:959-976 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1820-1837 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:959` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0003.swift:7— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0003.swift:7-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0004.swift:7-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:385— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:385-397 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:775-787 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:385` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-01-code-0006.swift:15— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-01-code-0006.swift:15-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0003.swift:15-27 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-01-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:61— Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:61-73 | Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/LoadThenNavigate.swift:82-94 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:61` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:23-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0005.swift:23-51 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:23` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:36— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:36-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:36-64 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 239 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:36` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:7— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:7-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0005-previous.swift:7-35 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0005-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:7` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1090— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1090-1115 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift:49-74 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1090` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:12-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:51-76 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Alert+Observation.swift:12` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:150— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:150-175 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift:149-174 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift` and `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:150` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0004.swift:18— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0004.swift:18-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0009-previous.swift:18-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0009.swift:20-37 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0009-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0002.swift:19— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0002.swift:19-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0004-previous.swift:19-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0004.swift:20-37 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0004-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0004.swift:19` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0002.swift:18` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift:19— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift:19-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0001.swift:22-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0002.swift:24-41 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0001.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift:19` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1463— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1463-1468 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1480-1485 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1463` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1566— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1566-1571 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1588-1593 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1566` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1564` calls `escaping` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1586` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1910— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1910-1919 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1945-1950 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1910` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
MethodTooLong: ReducerMacro._expansion Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:172— MethodTooLong — _expansion runs 205 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 105 over it, 2.05× 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: _StackReducer._reduce Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:439— MethodTooLong — _reduce runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:48— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:54-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:56-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:57-71 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:58-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:64-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0006.swift:64-78 — These 8 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 8 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 8 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift:9— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift:9-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0003.swift:9-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0004.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0005.swift:9-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0008-previous.swift:9-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0008.swift:9-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0009.swift:9-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0010.swift:9-31 — These 8 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 8 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 8 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003.swift:12-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0005.swift:12-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0006.swift:12-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0007.swift:12-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0002-previous.swift:12-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0002.swift:12-29 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:288— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:288-315 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:322-349 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:357-420 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:427-491 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/OnChange.swift:62-96 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:199-226 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:235-270 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0007.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0007.swift:12-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0003-previous.swift:12-39 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0003-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/04-Navigation-NavigateAndLoad.swift:28— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/04-Navigation-NavigateAndLoad.swift:28-55 | Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/NavigateAndLoad.swift:21-48 — 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 (25–26 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:712— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:712-736 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:748-773 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:712` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (25–26 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:784— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:784-809 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:814-838 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:784` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:157— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:157-181 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:26-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:27-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:42-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:43-67 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:46-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:47-71 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:51-75 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:52-76 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:56-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:65-89 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:68-92 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:68-92 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:70-94 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:69-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:70-94 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:69-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:69-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:77-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:78-102 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:84-108 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:85-109 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:85-109 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:105-129 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:120-144 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:123-147 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:26-50 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:157` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:242— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:242-266 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:69-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:71-95 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:86-110 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:87-111 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:90-114 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:91-115 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:95-119 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:96-120 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:100-124 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:109-133 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:112-136 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:112-136 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:114-138 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:113-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:114-138 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:113-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:113-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:121-145 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:122-146 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:128-152 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:129-153 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:130-154 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:150-174 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:165-189 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:168-192 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:69-93 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:35— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:35-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0006.swift:35-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004-previous.swift:35-58 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:35` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:30— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:30-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004-previous.swift:30-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:32-55 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:30` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift:17— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift:17-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0003-previous.swift:17-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:19-40 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0003-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:23-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0005-previous.swift:23-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0005.swift:19-40 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0005-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:23` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0005.swift:16` calls `buttonStyle` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0004.swift:20` 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 (22 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:13— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:13-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:13-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:26— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:26-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0012.swift:28-49 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0012.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:26` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0012.swift:26` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:24` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3625— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3625-3645 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3783-3803 — 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 (21 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1622— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1622-1642 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1701-1721 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1622` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0006.swift:17— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0006.swift:17-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:17-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:23-42 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0006.swift:17` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:23-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:23-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:29-48 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:23` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0001.swift:6— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0001.swift:6-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0008.swift:4-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:4-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006-previous.swift:4-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006.swift:4-21 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-01-code-0001.swift:6` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:11— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:11-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006-previous.swift:11-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006.swift:11-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0007.swift:20-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0013-previous.swift:20-37 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:11` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0006.swift:29` calls `alert`, `scope` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-02-code-0009.swift:29` 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 (17 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:17— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:18-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 108 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:17` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:40— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:40-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:42-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:42-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:42-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:42-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:44-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0005.swift:42-58 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 57 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:40` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Meeting.swift:7— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Meeting.swift:7-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-01-code-0003.swift:7-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Meeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-01-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift:17— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift:17-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift:17-33 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift:17` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0004.swift:34` calls `ifLet`, `SyncUpForm` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0003.swift:34` 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 (16 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:23-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004-previous.swift:23-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:25-40 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 97% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:23` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:21` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Counter.swift:42— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Counter.swift:42-57 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-UserDefaults.swift:151-166 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/03-Effects-Basics.swift:104-119 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/03-Effects-Refreshable.swift:80-95 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-UserDefaults.swift:168` calls `Button`, `send` and `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Counter.swift:58` 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 (15 lines × 12) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0007.swift:34— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0007.swift:34-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0008.swift:35-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0009.swift:36-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0010.swift:37-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:39-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0012.swift:41-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:41-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:54-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:55-69 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:53-67 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:49-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:49-63 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 12) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:48— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:49-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:56-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:57-71 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:63-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:63-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:63-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:63-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:78-92 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:81-95 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 207 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:48` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:78` calls `ifLet` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:63` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 10) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:31— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:31-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0005.swift:31-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:33-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift:33-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:34-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:36-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:36-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:36-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:36-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:38-52 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:31` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:50` calls `toggle` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:46` 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 (15 lines × 10) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift:13— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift:13-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0001.swift:16-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0002.swift:18-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:18-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0004.swift:18-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:18-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004-previous.swift:18-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004.swift:19-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006-previous.swift:19-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006.swift:18-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0001.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000.swift:13` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0002.swift:15` calls `confirmDeletion` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0001.swift:13` 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 (15 lines × 4) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:106— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:106-120 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004-previous.swift:64-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:65-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:52-66 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0005.swift:15— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0005.swift:15-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0001-previous.swift:15-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0001.swift:16-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0002.swift:17-31 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:40— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:41-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:47-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:47-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:47-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:47-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:62-75 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:62-75 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 223 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:40` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:30— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:30-43 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:31-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift:31-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:33-46 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:33-46 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:33-46 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0016.swift:34-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:33-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 57 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:30— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:30-43 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004-previous.swift:30-43 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:32-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:32-45 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0004-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0003.swift:30` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1102— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1102-1115 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1160-1173 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:306-319 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift:61-74 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:12-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:12-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:12-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:12-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:12-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:12` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:28— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:28-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:38-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:39-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:37-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:32-43 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:28` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:69— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:69-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:69-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:69-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:70-81 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 120 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:69` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:69` calls `foregroundColor` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:68` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0005.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0005.swift:8-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0006.swift:8-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0007.swift:8-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0008.swift:8-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/TestingNavigation-01-code-0005.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1088— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1088-1099 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:292-303 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift:47-58 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/UIKit/NavigationStackControllerUIKit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:1088` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Counter.swift:24— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Counter.swift:24-35 | Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:17-28 | Examples/Integration/Integration/Legacy/SwitchStoreTestCase.swift:15-26 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/PresentsMacro.swift:148— Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/PresentsMacro.swift:148-159 | Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/PresentsMacro.swift:179-190 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/PresentsMacro.swift:148` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/IdentifiedListTestCase.swift:75— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/IdentifiedListTestCase.swift:75-86 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableIdentifiedListTestCase.swift:65-76 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/IdentifiedListTestCase.swift:75` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:18— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:18-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:18-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:18-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001.swift:18-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0002.swift:18-28 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:30` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:30` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0002.swift:13— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0002.swift:13-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0003.swift:14-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0004.swift:17-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0005.swift:18-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0006.swift:18-28 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-01-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift:9— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0004.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0005.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0006.swift:9-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift:9` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0004.swift:20` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-02-code-0003.swift:20` 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 (11 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0001-previous.swift:16— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0001-previous.swift:16-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0001.swift:17-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0002.swift:18-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0004.swift:16-26 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0001-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0001.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0002.swift:15` calls `editSyncUp` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0001-previous.swift:13` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:15— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:15-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0006.swift:15-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0007.swift:15-25 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0007.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:15` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:28— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:28-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003.swift:30-40 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0011-previous.swift:13-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:28` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift:17— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift:17-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift:17-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0006.swift:17-26 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:64— Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:64-73 | Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/LoadThenNavigate.swift:85-94 | Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/NavigateAndLoad.swift:73-82 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/CaseStudies/UIKitCaseStudies/CounterViewController.swift:64` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:206— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:206-213 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:260-267 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:464-471 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:811-818 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:206` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:236— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:236-243 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:295-302 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:392-399 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:782-789 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:236` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:23-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:23-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001.swift:23-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0002.swift:23-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0003.swift:23-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0004.swift:23-29 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:23` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:30` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:30` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3383— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3383-3389 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1297-1303 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1317-1323 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1488-1494 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1508-1514 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1590-1596 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1610-1616 — there are 7 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 7 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3383` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1389— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1389-1395 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1414-1420 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1389` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1943— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1943-1949 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1994-2000 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1943` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Low cohesion: VariableDeclSyntax (LCOM4 6) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/Extensions.swift:18— VariableDeclSyntax's methods fall into 6 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 6 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: Store (LCOM4 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:115— Store'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.
ReducerMacro._expansion (cyclomatic 42) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:172— ReducerMacro._expansion has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 3 of the 6 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 44 of the 52 points over it (85%), 11× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
ReducerMacro.expansion (cyclomatic 30) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:45— ReducerMacro.expansion has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 3 of the 6 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 44 of the 52 points over it (85%), 11× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
_PresentationReducer._reduce (cyclomatic 19) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:479— _PresentationReducer._reduce has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
RootCore._send (cyclomatic 18) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Core.swift:77— RootCore._send has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ReducerCase.storeCasePathProperty (cyclomatic 17) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:551— ReducerCase.storeCasePathProperty has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 3 of the 6 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 44 of the 52 points over it (85%), 11× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Store.swift.storeTypeName (cyclomatic 16) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:601— Store.swift.storeTypeName has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency not covered by the committed resolution · ×1
Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: swift-issue-reporting — `swift-issue-reporting` is declared in Package.swift but has no entry in the committed `Package.resolved` beside it, so its version is resolved rather than pinned. Resolve the package and commit the updated `Package.resolved`.
ReducerMacro._expansion (cognitive 81) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:172— ReducerMacro._expansion has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (48 pts), boolean chains 14, loops 3 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 38). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 4 of the 8 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 101 of the 123 points over it (82%), 6.3× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Core.swift at 16). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
ReducerMacro.expansion (cognitive 46) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:45— ReducerMacro.expansion has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (23 pts), boolean chains 15, loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 4 of the 8 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 101 of the 123 points over it (82%), 6.3× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Core.swift at 16). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
RootCore._send (cognitive 31) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Core.swift:77— RootCore._send has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
_PresentationReducer._reduce (cognitive 19) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/PresentationReducer.swift:479— _PresentationReducer._reduce has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 9, if/else 7 (9 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ReducerCase.actionCaseDecl (cognitive 17) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:498— ReducerCase.actionCaseDecl has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 9, if/else 4 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 4 of the 8 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 101 of the 123 points over it (82%), 6.3× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Core.swift at 16). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
ReducerCase.storeCasePathProperty (cognitive 17) Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift:551— ReducerCase.storeCasePathProperty has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 10, if/else 5 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 1). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ReducerMacro.swift holds 4 of the 8 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 101 of the 123 points over it (82%), 6.3× the next-largest file (Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Core.swift at 16). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
_StackReducer._reduce (cognitive 16) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/StackReducer.swift:439— _StackReducer._reduce has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), ternaries 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Store.swift.storeTypeName (cognitive 16) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:601— Store.swift.storeTypeName has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 10, if/else 6. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Change coupling: Package.swift ↔ Exports.swift Package.swift:1— `Package.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Exports.swift` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 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 different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `dae1b9aa` Leverage UIKitNavigation (#3180); `89f80fe2` Bump swiftui-navigation (#2239); `0a195811` Depend on SwiftUINavigation for TextState, AlertState, etc... (#1685) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (15 members, 30 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (15 members, 30 shared lines) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:12-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:12-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:12-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:12-94 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:12-96 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:12-97 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:12-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:12-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:12-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:12-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:12-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:12-101 — These 15 members are variants of one another: a block of 30 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 15 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 15 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (11 members, 21 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (11 members, 21 shared lines) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:123— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:123-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:12-97 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:12-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:12-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:12-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:12-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:12-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:12-101 — These 11 members are variants of one another: a block of 21 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 11 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 11 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (10 members, 29 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (10 members, 29 shared lines) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:123— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:123-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:12-96 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:12-97 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:12-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:12-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:12-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:12-101 — These 10 members are variants of one another: a block of 29 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 10 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 10 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 22 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 22 shared lines) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:28— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:28-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:38-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:39-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:37-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:32-74 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:32-71 — These 6 members are variants of one another: a block of 22 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 24 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 24 shared lines) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:32— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:32-71 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:32-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:32-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:32-66 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 24 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (19 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (19 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpsList.swift:127— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpsList.swift:127-142 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0006.swift:12-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0007.swift:19-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001-previous.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:37-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:53-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:55-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:55-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001.swift:55-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0002.swift:55-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0003.swift:55-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0004.swift:55-70 — These 19 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 19 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 19 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (16 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (16 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0002.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0002.swift:8-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift:8-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0004.swift:8-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:8-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0006.swift:8-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0007.swift:8-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0008.swift:8-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift:8-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:8-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:9-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift:9-87 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:9-61 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:9-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:9-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0016.swift:9-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:9-64 — These 16 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 16 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 16 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:18— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:18-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0003.swift:18-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:19-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0005.swift:19-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:21-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift:21-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:22-65 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:24-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:24-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:24-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:24-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:26-73 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0005.swift:27-71 — These 13 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 13 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 13 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (12 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (12 members, 50+ identical tokens) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:67— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:67-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:12-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:12-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:18-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:18-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:18-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:18-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:18-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0006.swift:18-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004-previous.swift:18-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:18-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:13-46 — These 12 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 12 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 12 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3374— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3374-3399 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3700-3724 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3755-3779 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1295-1313 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1315-1359 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1485-1504 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1506-1550 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1587-1606 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1608-1652 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1682-1732 — These 10 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 10 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 10 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008.swift:8-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift:9-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0010.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0011.swift:9-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0012.swift:9-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:9-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0014.swift:9-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0016.swift:9-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0017.swift:9-39 — These 9 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 9 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 9 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-02-code-0004.swift:4— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-02-code-0004.swift:4-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0001-previous.swift:4-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0001.swift:4-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0002.swift:4-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0001.swift:4-53 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:299— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:299-329 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:126-156 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:128-158 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:143-173 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:144-174 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:147-177 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:148-178 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:152-182 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:153-183 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:157-187 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:166-196 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:169-199 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:169-199 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:171-201 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:170-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:171-201 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:170-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:170-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:178-208 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:179-209 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:185-215 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:186-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:187-217 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:207-237 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:222-252 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:225-255 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:126-156 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (28–29 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:24— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:24-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0005-previous.swift:24-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0005.swift:27-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0006.swift:28-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0001-previous.swift:24-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0001.swift:24-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0002.swift:24-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0003.swift:24-51 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0005-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:24` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:20— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:20-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001-previous.swift:20-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001.swift:24-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0002.swift:25-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0003.swift:26-54 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:45— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:45-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:45-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:45-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:45-72 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 103 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:45` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (26–28 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0003.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0003.swift:12-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0007-previous.swift:12-37 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0007-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:23-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001.swift:23-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0002.swift:23-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0003.swift:23-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0004.swift:23-49 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:23` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 26) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:35— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:35-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:36-61 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:51-76 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:52-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:55-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:56-81 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:60-85 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:61-86 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:65-90 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:74-99 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:77-102 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:77-102 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:79-104 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:78-103 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:79-104 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:78-103 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:78-103 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:86-111 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:87-112 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:93-118 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:94-119 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:94-119 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:114-139 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:129-154 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:132-157 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:35-60 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 158 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:35` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:62` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:61` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 9) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:128— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:128-153 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:16-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:16-41 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 100 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:128` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:127` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:15` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:52— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:52-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:52-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:52-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:52-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:52-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:53-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:54-79 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 108 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:52` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:78` calls `sheet`, `scope`, `SyncUpFormView` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:78` 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 (21–26 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0007.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0007.swift:12-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000-previous.swift:12-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0000-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 91% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (21–25 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:288— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:288-308 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:322-342 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:357-377 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:427-451 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/OnChange.swift:62-86 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:199-219 — there are 6 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 6 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:288` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0007.swift:6— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0007.swift:6-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0013.swift:6-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0014.swift:6-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0003-previous.swift:9-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0003.swift:9-33 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0013.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-02-code-0004.swift:4— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-02-code-0004.swift:4-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0001-previous.swift:4-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0001.swift:4-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0002.swift:4-27 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0001.swift:4-27 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-02-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/01-YourFirstFeature/01-01-02-code-0004.swift:4` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14–24 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0004.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0004.swift:8-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0005.swift:8-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0006-previous.swift:8-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0006.swift:8-31 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-03-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:36— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:36-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift:36-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:38-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:38-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:38-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0016.swift:39-61 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:38-60 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 80 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:62` calls `cancel` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:59` 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 (22–23 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:290— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:290-311 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:324-345 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:359-380 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:432-454 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/OnChange.swift:67-89 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:201-222 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:242-264 — there are 7 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 7 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:432` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:240` calls `withTransaction`, `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Effect.swift:431` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001-previous.swift:12-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:12-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 12) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:36— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:36-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:36-57 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 108 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:36` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14–22 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:36— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:36-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:37-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:37-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:31-44 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:36` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:45` calls `bind` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:50` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 9) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:168— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:168-188 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:52-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:53-73 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 100 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:168` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:166` calls `send`, `deleteMeetings` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:50` 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 (21 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0005.swift:20— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0005.swift:20-40 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0006.swift:20-40 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0015-previous.swift:19-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0015.swift:20-40 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/01-YourFirstPresentation/02-01-04-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift:39— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift:39-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0011.swift:39-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0012.swift:39-59 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0011.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 57 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:24— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:24-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004-previous.swift:24-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004.swift:25-43 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006-previous.swift:25-43 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006.swift:24-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0007.swift:23-42 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:24` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0011.swift:31— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0011.swift:31-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0012.swift:31-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006-previous.swift:31-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006.swift:32-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0007.swift:32-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007-previous.swift:32-51 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0012.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0011.swift:31` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:29— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:29-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:30-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:36-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:36-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:36-55 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 223 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:29` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:145— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:145-164 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:33-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:33-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:34-53 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 120 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:145` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:166` calls `send`, `deleteMeetings` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:53` 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 (16–20 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0005.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0005.swift:8-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0006.swift:8-27 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 15) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:45— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:45-63 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:46-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:46-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:47-65 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 108 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:45` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 10) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:198— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:198-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:79-96 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:80-97 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:81-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:81-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:82-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:82-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:83-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:82-100 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:83-101 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:198` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:79` calls `alert`, `scope` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:77` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:11— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0012.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0013.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0014.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001-previous.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0002.swift:11-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0003.swift:11-29 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0012.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:11` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:336— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:336-353 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:365-383 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:336` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 18) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:30— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:30-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001-previous.swift:30-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001.swift:34-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0002.swift:35-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0003.swift:36-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift:39-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0005.swift:39-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0006.swift:51-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0007.swift:40-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0008.swift:41-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0009.swift:42-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0010.swift:43-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:45-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0012.swift:47-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:47-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:60-77 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:61-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:59-76 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:30` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift:57` calls `ifLet` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:48` 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 (18 lines × 13) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:8-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0006.swift:8-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0007.swift:8-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0008.swift:8-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift:8-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:8-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0016.swift:9-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:9-26 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0006.swift:29` calls `advance`, `seconds` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:29` 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 (18 lines × 9) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:24— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:24-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:24-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:24-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:25-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:27-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:27-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:29-46 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:28-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:29-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 176 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:24` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:25` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:22` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:32— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:32-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004-previous.swift:32-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004.swift:33-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006-previous.swift:33-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006.swift:32-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0007.swift:32-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift:29-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:43— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:43-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:43-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:43-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:43-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:45-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0005.swift:43-60 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 103 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:43` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11–18 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:34— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:34-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:35-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:35-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:35-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:29-39 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:34` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:46` calls `attendee` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:45` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14–18 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:57— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:57-74 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:58-71 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:53-66 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:57` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:50` calls `alert` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:54` 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 (18 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:209— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:209-226 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:239-256 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:395-412 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:467-484 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:209` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:51— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:51-67 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:52-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:50-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:46-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:46-62 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 119 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:37— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:37-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift:37-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0011.swift:37-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0012.swift:37-52 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift:38— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift:38-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0002.swift:38-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0006-previous.swift:36-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0004-previous.swift:38-54 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift:38` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0002.swift:55` calls `forEach`, `ContactDetailFeature` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift:55` 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 (17 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:39— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:39-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:54-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:54-70 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 220 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:39` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:367— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:367-382 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:194-209 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:196-211 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:211-226 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:212-227 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:215-230 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:216-231 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:220-235 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:221-236 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:225-240 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:234-249 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:237-252 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:237-252 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:239-254 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:238-253 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:239-254 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:238-253 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:238-253 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:246-261 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:247-262 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:253-268 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:254-269 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:255-270 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:275-290 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:290-305 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:293-308 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:194-209 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 11) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:32— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:32-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0004.swift:32-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0005.swift:39-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004-previous.swift:39-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0004.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006-previous.swift:40-55 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0006.swift:39-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0007.swift:39-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift:36-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift:33-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0010.swift:36-51 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 50 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:32` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0004.swift:48` calls `ifLet` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-01-code-0003.swift:48` 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 (16 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:43— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:43-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:44-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:42-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:37-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:38-53 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 119 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:8-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:8-22 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0006-previous.swift:8-22 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13–16 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift:14— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift:14-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0004.swift:14-29 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift:14` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/IdentifiedArray+Observation.swift:73— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/IdentifiedArray+Observation.swift:73-87 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/IdentifiedArray+Observation.swift:101-116 — 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 `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/IdentifiedArray+Observation.swift:73` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:48— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:48-62 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:54-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:56-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:57-71 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:58-72 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:64-78 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0006.swift:64-78 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:336— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:336-349 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:163-176 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:165-178 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:180-193 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:181-194 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:184-197 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:185-198 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:189-202 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:190-203 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:194-207 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:203-216 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:206-219 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:206-219 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:208-221 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:207-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:208-221 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:207-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:207-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:215-228 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:216-229 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:222-235 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:223-236 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:224-237 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:244-257 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:259-272 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:262-275 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:163-176 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 19) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpsList.swift:127— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpsList.swift:127-140 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0006.swift:12-25 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0007.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0008.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001-previous.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:37-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:40-53 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:53-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0002.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0003.swift:55-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0004.swift:55-68 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpsList.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpsList.swift:127` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 16) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0002.swift:10— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0002.swift:10-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift:10-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0004.swift:10-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0006.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0007.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0008.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:12-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift:12-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:12-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:12-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:12-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0016.swift:12-24 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:12-24 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0005.swift:11` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0003.swift:25` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0002.swift:24` 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 (14 lines × 12) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:72— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:72-85 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:22-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:23-36 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:24-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0004.swift:24-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0005.swift:24-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0006.swift:24-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004-previous.swift:24-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:24-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:18-31 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpForm.swift:72` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 11) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0007.swift:17— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0007.swift:17-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007-previous.swift:17-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007.swift:18-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000-previous.swift:20-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000.swift:21-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift:22-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0002.swift:22-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0006-previous.swift:20-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0006.swift:20-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0004-previous.swift:22-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0004.swift:21-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0007.swift:17` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 10) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:19— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0005-previous.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0005.swift:22-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0001-previous.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0001.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0002.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0003.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:19-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-01-code-0005.swift:19-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0005.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:19` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0005.swift:20` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0004.swift:18` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift:16— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0010.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0011.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0012.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006-previous.swift:16-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006.swift:17-30 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift:16` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006.swift:16` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0008.swift:15` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 5) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift:21— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift:21-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0006.swift:28-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:28-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:34-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:34-47 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0006.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/03-SyncUpForm/SyncUpForm-01-code-0005.swift:21` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:13— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:13-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:13-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:13-26 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:13` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 12) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:19— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:19-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0003.swift:19-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:20-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0005.swift:20-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:22-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift:22-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:23-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:25-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:25-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:25-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:25-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:27-39 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:19` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:24` calls `Dependency` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:16` 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 (13 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift:11— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0010.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0011.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0012.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0014.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0016.swift:11-23 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0017.swift:11-23 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0010.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0010.swift:24` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift:24` 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 (13 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift:8-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0004.swift:8-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0005.swift:8-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:8-20 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0004.swift:24` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/TestingSyncUpDetail-01-code-0003.swift:21` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 23) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:28— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift:28-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001-previous.swift:28-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001.swift:32-43 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0002.swift:33-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0003.swift:34-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0004.swift:37-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0005.swift:37-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0006.swift:49-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0007.swift:38-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0008.swift:39-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0009.swift:40-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0010.swift:41-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0011.swift:43-54 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0012.swift:45-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:45-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:58-69 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:59-70 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:57-68 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:55-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:56-67 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:53-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:53-64 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:51-62 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 59 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:50` calls `alert` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:54` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 13) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:18— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:18-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0003.swift:18-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:19-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0005.swift:19-30 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0002.swift:21-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0003.swift:21-32 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0004.swift:22-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0005.swift:24-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-03-code-0006.swift:24-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003-previous.swift:24-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-01-code-0003.swift:24-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-02-code-0008.swift:26-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/03-TestingYourFeatures/01-03-04-code-0005.swift:27-38 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:18` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0004.swift:15` calls `factResponse` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/02-AddingSideEffects/01-02-02-code-0002.swift:14` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 8) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift:9— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0003.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0004.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0005.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0008-previous.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0008.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0009.swift:9-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0010.swift:9-20 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift:9` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0003.swift:22` calls `send`, `deleteButtonTapped`, `UUID` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0002.swift:21` 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 (11 lines × 17) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift:23— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift:23-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0010.swift:23-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0011.swift:23-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0012.swift:23-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006-previous.swift:23-33 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0006.swift:24-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0007.swift:24-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007-previous.swift:24-34 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-03-code-0007.swift:25-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000-previous.swift:27-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0000.swift:28-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0001.swift:29-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0002.swift:29-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0006-previous.swift:27-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-02-code-0006.swift:27-37 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0004-previous.swift:29-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0004.swift:28-38 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0010.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/02-MultipleDestinations/02-02-02-code-0009.swift:23` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 16) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:133— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:133-143 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:21-31 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:22-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:133` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 11) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0008.swift:10— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0008.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0009.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0010.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0012.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0013.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0014.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001-previous.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0002.swift:10-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0003.swift:10-20 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0008.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0009.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0009.swift:22` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0008.swift:21` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 9) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift:28— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift:28-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:28-38 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0011.swift:29-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0012.swift:29-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0013.swift:31-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0014.swift:31-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0015.swift:32-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0016.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0017.swift:32-41 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0010.swift:40` calls `advance`, `seconds`, `receive` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-04-code-0009.swift:39` 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 (11 lines × 9) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008.swift:8-18 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0010.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0011.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0012.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0014.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0016.swift:9-19 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0017.swift:9-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0009.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0008.swift:8` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:34— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:34-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:34-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:34-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift:34-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0011.swift:34-44 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0012.swift:34-44 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:34` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (3–11 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2943— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2943-2953 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3004-3006 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3032-3040 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2943` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:2942` calls `escaping` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Deprecations.swift:3004` 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 (10 lines × 15) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:38— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:38-47 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:40-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:40-49 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:42-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:41-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:42-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:41-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:41-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:49-58 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:50-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:56-65 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:56-65 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:56-65 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:56-65 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:71-80 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 192 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:38` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 11) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:145— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:145-154 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0006.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004-previous.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:33-42 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:34-43 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 100 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:145` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003.swift:12-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0005.swift:12-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0006.swift:12-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-02-code-0007.swift:12-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0002-previous.swift:12-21 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0002.swift:12-21 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:12` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003.swift:23` calls `meeting`, `MeetingView` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0003-previous.swift:23` 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 (10 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:32— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift:32-41 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift:42-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003.swift:43-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0004.swift:41-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0005.swift:36-45 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:37-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0013.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0003-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 67 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:718— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:718-727 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:755-764 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:791-800 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:820-829 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:718` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 12) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0007.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0007.swift:8-16 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0008.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0009.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0010.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0012.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0013.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0014.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001-previous.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0002.swift:8-17 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0003.swift:8-17 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 93% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0007.swift:8` 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 (9 lines × 4) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Models.swift:49— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Models.swift:49-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0002.swift:48-56 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0003.swift:49-57 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift:50-58 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/Models.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-01-code-0004.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (4–9 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:25— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:25-28 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0014.swift:27-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0016.swift:27-35 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0017.swift:27-35 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0014.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:25` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0014.swift:27` calls `send` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/03-TestingPresentation/02-03-01-code-0013.swift:25` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 11) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:22— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0012.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0013.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0014.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0004.swift:19-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0005.swift:19-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-02-code-0006.swift:19-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001-previous.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0001.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0002.swift:22-29 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/05-PersistingSyncUps/PersistingSyncUps-02-code-0003.swift:22-29 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0011.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/TestingSyncUpFormPresentation-01-code-0012.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 7) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:32— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:32-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift:32-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0008.swift:32-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0009.swift:32-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0010.swift:32-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0011.swift:32-39 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0012.swift:32-39 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0007.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0006.swift:32` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 6) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:209— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:209-214 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:238-244 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:263-268 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:297-303 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:394-400 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:467-472 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:209` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:73— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:73-79 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:101-107 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:134-140 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:200-206 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:73` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 16) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:43— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:43-48 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:45-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:45-50 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:47-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:46-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:47-52 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:46-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:46-51 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:54-59 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:55-60 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:61-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:61-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:61-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:61-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:76-81 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:79-84 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 192 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:43` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 12) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/IdentifiedArray+Observation.swift:91— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/IdentifiedArray+Observation.swift:91-96 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:68-73 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:96-101 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:129-134 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:195-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:128-133 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:228-233 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:287-292 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:355-360 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/Store+Observation.swift:738-743 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/Scope.swift:168-173 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Store.swift:322-327 — there are 12 copies across 5 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 12 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:62— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:62-66 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:79-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:123-127 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:140-144 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Observation/NavigationStack+Observation.swift:62` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-01-code-0007.swift:7— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-01-code-0007.swift:7-26 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0003-previous.swift:7-26 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-01-code-0007.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-03-code-0003-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/02-Navigation/04-NavigationStacks/02-04-01-code-0007.swift:7` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:281— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:281-292 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:108-119 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:110-121 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:125-136 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:126-137 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:129-140 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:130-141 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:134-145 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:135-146 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:139-150 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:148-159 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:151-162 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:151-162 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:153-164 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:152-163 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:153-164 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:152-163 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:152-163 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:160-171 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:161-172 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:167-178 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:168-179 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:169-180 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:189-200 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:204-215 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:207-218 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:108-119 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 27) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:385— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:385-393 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift:212-220 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:214-222 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:229-237 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:230-238 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:233-241 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:234-242 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:238-246 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:239-247 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:243-251 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:252-260 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:255-263 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:255-263 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:257-265 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:256-264 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:257-265 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:256-264 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:256-264 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:264-272 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:265-273 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:271-279 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:272-280 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:273-281 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:293-301 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:308-316 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:311-319 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-01-code-0003.swift:212-220 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/RecordMeeting.swift:385` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 14) Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:272— Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:272-280 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005-previous.swift:81-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0005.swift:81-93 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0006.swift:86-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0007.swift:97-109 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift:99-111 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014-previous.swift:100-112 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-02-code-0014.swift:101-113 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013-previous.swift:101-113 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-03-code-0013.swift:103-115 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/SyncUpDetail-01-code-0007.swift:82-94 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/MeetingNavigation-02-code-0004.swift:104-116 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003-previous.swift:103-115 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/RecordMeetingFeature-02-code-0003.swift:104-116 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/06-SyncUpDetail/EditingAndDeletingSyncUp-01-code-0008.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/SyncUps/SyncUps/SyncUpDetail.swift:272` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 14) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:71— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:71-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001-previous.swift:71-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001-previous.swift:68-80 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0001.swift:71-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0002.swift:71-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-02-code-0003.swift:71-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001-previous.swift:71-83 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0001.swift:84-96 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/04-PresentingSyncUpForm/PresentingSyncUpForm-03-code-0002.swift:86-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001-previous.swift:86-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0001.swift:86-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0002.swift:86-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0003.swift:86-98 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/07-SyncUpDetailNavigation/SyncUpDetailNavigation-03-code-0004.swift:86-98 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 50 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/02-ListsOfSyncUps/ListsOfSyncUps-02-code-0009.swift:71` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-01-code-0003.swift:8— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-01-code-0003.swift:8-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0001-previous.swift:8-20 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0001.swift:9-21 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-01-code-0003.swift` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/MeetTheComposableArchitecture/01-Essentials/04-ComposingFeatures/01-04-03-code-0001-previous.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:183— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:183-206 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift:182-205 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift` and `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 3) Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1317— Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1317-1339 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1508-1530 | Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1610-1632 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1317` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1633` calls `extract` and `Sources/ComposableArchitecture/TestStore.swift:1531` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (17–19 lines × 2) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:14— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:14-32 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableSiblingTestCase.swift:16-32 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:14` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:22— Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:22-34 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/SiblingTestCase.swift:21-32 | Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 17/ObservableSiblingTestCase.swift:23-34 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:22` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16/SiblingTestCase.swift:33` calls `Button`, `send` and `Examples/Integration/Integration/iOS 16+17/NewOldSiblingsTestCase.swift:35` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:233— Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift:233-240 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift:221-228 | Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-UserDefaults.swift:215-222 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-FileStorage.swift` and `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/02-SharedState-InMemory.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 92 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
No direct assertions: testBasics Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/PresentsMacroTests.swift:18— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testAccessControl Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/PresentsMacroTests.swift:58— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testObservableStateDiagnostic Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/PresentsMacroTests.swift:135— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testBasics Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:16— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnumState Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:50— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testAlreadyApplied Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:85— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testExistingCasePathableConformance Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:122— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testReduceMethodDiagnostic Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:165— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEmptyEnum Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:232— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:285— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_DefaultInitializer Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:426— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_Empty Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:519— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_Empty_AccessControl_Package Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:573— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_Empty_AccessControl_Public Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:635— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_OneAlertCase Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:697— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_TwoCases Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:765— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_TwoCases_AccessControl_Public Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:858— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_CaseIgnored Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:959— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_CaseIgnoredExplicitActions Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1051— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_Attributes Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1147— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_Conformances Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1243— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testEnum_Nested Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1357— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testStructWithNoRequirements Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1429— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testStructWithNoRequirements_AccessControl Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1458— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testFilledRequirements_Typealias Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/ReducerMacroTests.swift:1489— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0008.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0007.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0006.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0005.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0004.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0003.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0002.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0003.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0004.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-03-code-0001-previous.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0002.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0010.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-02-code-0001-previous.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0009.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0008.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Internal/Create.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0007.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0006.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0005.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0004.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0003.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0002.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Documentation.docc/Tutorials/BuildingSyncUps/08-RecordMeeting/ImplementingTimer-01-code-0001.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
+ 17 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality· Test project verifies nothing · ×4
Test project verifies nothing: ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests Tests/ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests/PresentsMacroTests.swift:18— No conventional assertion call was detected in 43 of 43 tests in `ComposableArchitectureMacrosTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: SearchTests Examples/Search/SearchTests/SearchTests.swift:9— No conventional assertion call was detected in 6 of 6 tests in `SearchTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: SpeechRecognitionTests Examples/SpeechRecognition/SpeechRecognitionTests/SpeechRecognitionTests.swift:8— No conventional assertion call was detected in 5 of 5 tests in `SpeechRecognitionTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: TodosTests Examples/Todos/TodosTests/TodosTests.swift:11— No conventional assertion call was detected in 10 of 10 tests in `TodosTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/DependencyKeyWritingReducer.swift, Package@swift-6.1.swift, Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/Reducers/OnChange.swift, Sources/ComposableArchitecture/Reducer/ReducerBuilder.swift, Sources/ComposableArchitecture/CaseReducer.swift. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (39854 LoC, 1542 module-visible types across 26 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
Concentrated knowledge decay — 42 of 80 significant files have no living knowledge, while the repository is still being changed at a low rate (2 commit(s) in the last 90 days) — so this is one repo-wide knowledge-decay state, not 42 separate risks. Counted over 80 of the 543 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. The code moved on without the people who understood these files: document them or schedule a read-through before the next change lands in them.
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.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6507 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.)
Duplicated predicate Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift:267— `!isComputed && isInstance && !isImmutable && identifier != nil` appears character-identically in 2 files — Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/ObservableStateMacro.swift, Sources/ComposableArchitectureMacros/PresentsMacro.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Outdated: combine-schedulers — `combine-schedulers` is resolved at 1.1.0, but 1.2.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/combine-schedulers within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update combine-schedulers` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: combine-schedulers — `combine-schedulers` is resolved at 1.2.0, but 1.2.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/combine-schedulers within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update combine-schedulers` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: package-benchmark — `package-benchmark` is resolved at 1.25.0, but 1.38.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/ordo-one/package-benchmark within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update package-benchmark` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-case-paths — `swift-case-paths` is resolved at 1.7.3, but 1.10.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-case-paths within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-case-paths` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-case-paths — `swift-case-paths` is resolved at 1.7.2, but 1.10.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-case-paths within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-case-paths` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-clocks — `swift-clocks` is resolved at 1.0.6, but 1.1.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-clocks within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-clocks` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-collections — `swift-collections` is resolved at 1.4.1, but 1.7.4 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-collections within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-collections` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-collections — `swift-collections` is resolved at 1.6.0, but 1.7.4 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-collections within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-collections` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-concurrency-extras — `swift-concurrency-extras` is resolved at 1.3.2, but 1.4.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-concurrency-extras within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-concurrency-extras` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-concurrency-extras — `swift-concurrency-extras` is resolved at 1.4.0, but 1.4.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-concurrency-extras within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-concurrency-extras` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-custom-dump — `swift-custom-dump` is resolved at 1.3.3, but 1.7.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-custom-dump within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-custom-dump` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-custom-dump — `swift-custom-dump` is resolved at 1.6.0, but 1.7.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-custom-dump within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-custom-dump` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-dependencies — `swift-dependencies` is resolved at 1.13.0, but 1.17.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-dependencies within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-dependencies` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-dependencies — `swift-dependencies` is resolved at 1.10.0, but 1.17.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-dependencies within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-dependencies` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-docc-plugin — `swift-docc-plugin` is resolved at 1.4.6, but 1.5.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-docc-plugin within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-docc-plugin` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-macro-testing — `swift-macro-testing` is resolved at 0.6.5, but 0.7.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-macro-testing within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-macro-testing` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-navigation — `swift-navigation` is resolved at 2.8.0, but 2.11.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-navigation within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-navigation` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-navigation — `swift-navigation` is resolved at 2.7.0, but 2.11.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-navigation within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-navigation` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-perception — `swift-perception` is resolved at 2.0.10, but 2.0.12 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-perception within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-perception` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-sharing — `swift-sharing` is resolved at 2.8.1, but 2.10.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-sharing within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-sharing` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-sharing — `swift-sharing` is resolved at 2.8.0, but 2.10.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-sharing within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-sharing` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-snapshot-testing — `swift-snapshot-testing` is resolved at 1.18.7, but 1.19.7 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-snapshot-testing.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-snapshot-testing` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: xctest-dynamic-overlay — `xctest-dynamic-overlay` is resolved at 1.7.0, but 1.13.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/xctest-dynamic-overlay within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update xctest-dynamic-overlay` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Skipped (documented): cancellation Tests/ComposableArchitectureTests/StoreTests.swift:1339— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: wrapped in withKnownIssue — the body is expected to fail, so its failure is not reported
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 143 file(s) — `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/00-RootView.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-AlertsAndConfirmationDialogs.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Animations.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Basics.swift`, `Examples/CaseStudies/SwiftUICaseStudies/01-GettingStarted-Bindings-Forms.swift`, … (+138 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a17773-027d-75fc-ae79-4bfa3ad4f031 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 13 · Warnings: 367 · Recommendations: 185 · Info: 24 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 26-10-2026 @ 09:03 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.