Public report of pppscn/SmsForwarder, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 00:38 UTC · Survey ID cd_cdfa265558ed46e086409fec69096773

pppscn/SmsForwarder

Measured 23 October 2026, 00:32 UTC, at code version a3d2302

No regression since the last survey Test distribution: not measured

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

Test distribution is not measured: No automated tests.

CAI score 39out of 100 Weak
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.

Architecture 88 Adequate Performance 78 Strong Code Health 67 Adequate Security and Compliance 56 Adequate Maturity 48 Weak Production Readiness 19 Critical

A medium codebase: 42,052 lines of product code in 2 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 19

Findings by how serious they are

26 critical 434 serious 41 minor

13 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 October 2026, 00:32 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 ▸

56of 59 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
483of 501 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 18 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
59dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 42,052 lines of product code in 2 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

pppscn/SmsForwarder scores 39 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while five of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 88, Code Health at 67 and Security and Compliance at 56, all rated Adequate, Performance at 78, rated Strong, and Maturity at 48, rated Weak.

The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 19 and is rated Critical. Its Code Coverage dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage and to resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 39 to about 57.

26 findings are critical: 21 in Static Analysis (SAST), four in Secrets (history) and one in Code Coverage.

Watchdog couldn't measure 12 dimensions in this code, among them Dependency Hygiene, License Compliance and Internal API Consistency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 42,052 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €36,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 67 Adequate, capped by Cognitive Complexity Architecture 88 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 48 Weak, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 19 ⚠ Critical, capped by Code Coverage, Test Distribution, Observability, Security & performance tooling and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 56 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 78 Strong

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Production Readiness 19 · counts for 46%Maturity 48 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 56 · counts for 14%Code Health 67 · counts for 8%Performance 78 · counts for 4%Architecture 88 · counts for 2%

If Production Readiness rose from 19 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 39 to about 57.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 100%
New since the last survey: 2 findings

These 2 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

  • Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €36,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€12,000 to €60,000, for 198 to 629 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.7 at a score of 39. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeMedium: 42,052 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Raises the score by about 17 points · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Raises the score by about 17 points · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €36,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 19 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 17 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Code Coverage findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.3 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 4% to 9% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 2,145 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 8,699 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0.9 to 5.5 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.

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.

133 modules, with 161 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 6 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 93 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 adapter.spinner2 entity.setting3 adapter.menu.DrawerAdapter4 entity5 adapter.menu6 database.entity7 server.model8 adapter.FrpcPagingAdapter9 adapter.MsgPagingAdapter10 adapter.RulePagingAdapter11 adapter.SenderPagingAdapter12 adapter.TaskPagingAdapter13 database.dao14 entity.action15 utils16 utils.sender.BarkUtils17 utils.sender.DingtalkGroupRobotUtils18 utils.sender.DingtalkInnerRobotUtils19 utils.sender.EmailUtils20 utils.sender.FeishuAppUtils21 utils.sender.FeishuUtils22 utils.sender.GotifyUtils23 utils.sender.PushplusUtils24 utils.sender.ServerchanUtils25 utils.sender.SmsUtils26 utils.sender.SocketUtils27 utils.sender.TelegramUtils28 utils.sender.UrlSchemeUtils29 utils.sender.WebhookUtils30 adapter31 database32 database.repository33 cn.ppps.forwarder34 core35 activity36 fragment.action37 fragment.client38 fragment.condition39 fragment.senders40 fragment
1 adapter.spinner
2 entity.setting
3 adapter.menu.DrawerAdapter1
4 entity4
5 adapter.menu2
6 database.entity1
7 server.model1
8 adapter.FrpcPagingAdapter2
9 adapter.MsgPagingAdapter3
10 adapter.RulePagingAdapter2
11 adapter.SenderPagingAdapter2
12 adapter.TaskPagingAdapter2
13 database.dao8
14 entity.action4
15 utils72
16 utils.sender.BarkUtils111
17 utils.sender.DingtalkGroupRobotUtils111
18 utils.sender.DingtalkInnerRobotUtils111
19 utils.sender.EmailUtils111
20 utils.sender.FeishuAppUtils111
21 utils.sender.FeishuUtils111
22 utils.sender.GotifyUtils111
23 utils.sender.PushplusUtils111
24 utils.sender.ServerchanUtils111
25 utils.sender.SmsUtils111
26 utils.sender.SocketUtils111
27 utils.sender.TelegramUtils111
28 utils.sender.UrlSchemeUtils111
29 utils.sender.WebhookUtils111
30 adapter14222221
31 database6
32 database.repository76
33 cn.ppps.forwarder16
34 core6
35 activity123
36 fragment.action126115112
37 fragment.client39
38 fragment.condition21110
39 fragment.senders1616
40 fragment6110111111182164
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 adapter.spinner2 entity.setting3 adapter.menu.DrawerAdapter4 entity5 adapter.menu6 database.entity7 server.model8 adapter.FrpcPagingAdapter9 adapter.MsgPagingAdapter10 adapter.RulePagingAdapter11 adapter.SenderPagingAdapter12 adapter.TaskPagingAdapter13 database.dao14 entity.action15 utils16 utils.sender.BarkUtils17 utils.sender.DingtalkGroupRobotUtils18 utils.sender.DingtalkInnerRobotUtils19 utils.sender.EmailUtils20 utils.sender.FeishuAppUtils21 utils.sender.FeishuUtils22 utils.sender.GotifyUtils23 utils.sender.PushplusUtils24 utils.sender.ServerchanUtils25 utils.sender.SmsUtils26 utils.sender.SocketUtils27 utils.sender.TelegramUtils28 utils.sender.UrlSchemeUtils29 utils.sender.WebhookUtils30 adapter31 database32 database.repository33 cn.ppps.forwarder34 core35 activity36 fragment.action37 fragment.client38 fragment.condition39 fragment.senders40 fragmentadapter.spinner1entity.setting2adapter.menu.DrawerAdapter3entity4adapter.menu5database.entity6server.model7adapter.FrpcPagingAdapter8adapter.MsgPagingAdapter9adapter.RulePagingAdapter10adapter.SenderPagingAdapter11adapter.TaskPagingAdapter12database.dao13entity.action14utils15utils.sender.BarkUtils16utils.sender.DingtalkGroupRobotUtils17utils.sender.DingtalkInnerRobotUtils18utils.sender.EmailUtils19utils.sender.FeishuAppUtils20utils.sender.FeishuUtils21utils.sender.GotifyUtils22utils.sender.PushplusUtils23utils.sender.ServerchanUtils24utils.sender.SmsUtils25utils.sender.SocketUtils26utils.sender.TelegramUtils27utils.sender.UrlSchemeUtils28utils.sender.WebhookUtils29adapter30database31database.repository32cn.ppps.forwarder33core34activity35fragment.action36fragment.client37fragment.condition38fragment.senders39fragment401421123222847211111111111111111111111111111111111111111114222221676166123126115112392111016166110111111182164+93 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 67% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·

The Good
D3 · Kotlin God Classes 8.2 D4 · Kotlin Code Duplication 8.2 D17 · Kotlin Explicit Debt 9.8 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 7.5 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0
The Bad
D1 · Kotlin Cyclomatic Complexity 6.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.6 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 5.2 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 6.0
The Ugly
D2 · Kotlin Cognitive Complexity 2.2

At a glance — Architecture · 88% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good
D5 · Kotlin Coupling 10.0 D6 · Kotlin Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.9 D35 · Kotlin Change Coupling 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.3 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0
The Ugly
D26 · Kotlin Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 48% · Weak · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Kotlin Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.3 D19 · Kotlin Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · Kotlin Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Kotlin Knowledge Freshness 9.9 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · Kotlin ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 19% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P2, P3, P7 ·

The Good
D13 · Kotlin REDACTED Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5
The Bad
P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
D8 · Kotlin Code Coverage 0.0 P2 · Repo Observability 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 56% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good
D44 · Kotlin Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0
The Bad
D28 · Kotlin Secrets (history) 6.0 D32 · Kotlin Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) 6.6
The Ugly
D29 · Kotlin Static Analysis (SAST) 3.1 D36 · Kotlin Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

At a glance — Performance · 78% · Strong ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.2

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection30High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures7Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures5High / Critical
A01:2025 — Broken Access Control4Medium

Roadmap

First, establish a baseline of reliability by implementing automated tests for the uncovered code and ensuring all modules are included in the test distribution. Next, document architectural decisions by creating the missing ADRs to improve long-term maintainability. Then, enhance system visibility by adopting a standard logging framework and configuring logs at key operational points. Finally, strengthen the development pipeline by integrating static security analysis into CI to automatically block regressions before they reach production.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.+17.1 ptsLowCode Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.+17.1 ptsLowTest Distribution
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+4.7 ptsLowADR Quality
Adopt SLF4J (with a Logback or Log4j2 JSON encoder) and log at meaningful points in the modules you run.+4.7 ptsMediumObservability
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+4.7 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
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.+4.6 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Set connect and read timeouts on every client (`RestTemplateBuilder.connectTimeout/readTimeout`, WebClient `responseTimeout`, `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout`, `HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout`, Feign `connectTimeout`/`readTimeout` in configuration), and wrap calls to dependencies in resilience4j `@Retry`/`@CircuitBreaker`/`@TimeLimiter` (or Spring Retry).+2.5 ptsMediumOutbound HTTP resilience
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10.+2.4 ptsMediumDocumentation Quality

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 117 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 2% slop · 60% mixed · 38% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED1.3SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED2.3SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt4.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation (cyclomatic 22)
REDACTED4.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.0MixedData Compliance (PII/GDPR): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt5.6MixedCyclomatic Complexity: SettingsFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 20)
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt5.6MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
REDACTED5.7MixedData Compliance (PII/GDPR): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 26

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 — 434

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 — 41

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

Could not be resolved — 13

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 56 of 59 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 59 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D13D15D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D32D34D35D36D44AX10AX2AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 483 of 501 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a1662c-9f75-71ae-a0b0-7cf6a500b234.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository's dependency manifests WERE read and their pinning discipline assessed; what went unanswered is the currency half, because oss.sonatype.org — the registry that answers it — was asked and did not reply (the build stopped because oss.sonatype.org, a repository this project declares, refused it with HTTP 403 — what this scan's egress allowlist returns for a host that is not on it, so the dependency graph was not resolved). This is OUR side and it is an ENVIRONMENT fault, not a missing collector: the collector exists and ran. An HTTP 403 here is what this scan's egress allowlist returns for a host that is not on it, so the remedy is to add oss.sonatype.org to the allowlist and re-run — not to build anything.
  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (31 contributor(s) across 874 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 94% of the history; the other 30 hold 0.2% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/CommonUtils.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/ShareReflectUtil.kt` 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.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Boot via AndroidApp (app). the Android app did not build — `./gradlew :app:assembleDebug` exited -1: Tool stalled (no output) after 00:02:15.0081677.; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because app/build.gradle applies the Android application plugin and gradlew builds it).
  • 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.
  • 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 Kotlin 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 Kotlin 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 named async function in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, nor any Go, PHP or Dart function or Kotlin suspend function, makes a request that can be cancelled (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial; amphp; Dio; Ktor, OkHttp), so there is nothing to judge, 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.

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.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • 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.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • 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").
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

45 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ConditionUtils.checkCondition at 73. A further 4 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being TaskUtils.getTypeImageId at 24 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 3 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/TaskUtils.kt (TaskUtils.getTypeImageId at 24), app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt (SendersFragment.getFragment at 17), app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PlaceholderHelper.kt (PlaceholderHelper.getParameter at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cyclomatic 73)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt:49
ActionWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 65)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:82
EmailUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 44)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:35
WebhookUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 43)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:41
EmailFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 35)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:357

+ 40 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 6 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cyclomatic 73), ActionWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 65), EmailUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 44). — 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 6 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.0 to about 7.1/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
  2. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity2.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

90 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ActionWorker.doWork at 147.

SettingsFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 17) · ×2app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1398
ActionWorker.doWork (cognitive 147)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:82
ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cognitive 126)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt:49
EmailFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 73)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:357
WebhookUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 73)app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:41

+ 84 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 6 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ActionWorker.doWork (cognitive 147), ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cognitive 126), EmailFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 73). — 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 6 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.2 to about 4.5/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D3 · God Classes8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

30 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: AppDatabase.frpcDao · ×18app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:37
ClassTooLong: CronFragment · ×6app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:42
FileTooLong: condition/CronFragment.kt · ×5app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt
TooManyMethods: SettingsFragmentapp/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:90

What to do

  1. Resolve the 18 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with AppDatabase.kt (6), App.kt (2), EmailFragment.kt (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with CronFragment.kt, SettingsFragment.kt, RulesEditFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with CronFragment.kt, SettingsFragment.kt, RulesEditFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  4. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

158 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 20 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×8app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:137
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×8app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:437
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×8app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1128
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×6app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:170
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:84

+ 107 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SettingsFragment.kt (3), RulesEditFragment.kt (2), AgentWebFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CallQueryFragment.kt (2), AgentWebFragment.kt, RulesEditFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with LeaveAddressFragment.kt (2), SocketUtils.kt (2), SettingsFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · 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.

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

2 production modules (Gradle), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 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).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

8 of 89 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: AgentWebFragment (LCOM4 5) · ×8app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:65

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with SettingsFragment.kt (2), AgentWebFragment.kt, FrpcSpinnerItem.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

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

No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.

No automated tests

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

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

No test suite found.

No tests found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.3 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt (4×44=176); app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt (3×43=129); app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt (2×19=38)

Hotspot: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt · ×4app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:35

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with EmailUtils.kt, WebhookUtils.kt, BarkUtils.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 50 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

50 deducted task-comment markers across 42052 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×50app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/WebViewInterceptDialog.kt:98

What to do

  1. Resolve the 50 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LocationWorker.kt (6), BatteryWorker.kt (4), CronFragment.kt (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is a single cohesive document covering the project (what SmsForwarder does and its purpose), an English version link, release badges, a feature list with dates, a legal disclaimer including privacy and fraud statements, a working_principle image, a screen-shots section, and a final encouragement note. It also includes a '特别声明' section that is itself clipped mid-sentence, so the full legal content plus the outlined sections (download address, usage docs, feedback) are present but not shown by the scanner.

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README is a single cohesive document covering the project (what SmsForwarder does and its purpose), an English version link, release badges, a feature list with dates, a legal disclaimer including privacy and fraud statements, a working_principle image, a screen-shots section, and a final encouragement note. It also includes a '特别声明' section that is itself clipped mid-sentence, so the full legal content plus the outlined sections (download address, usage docs, feedback) are present but not shown by the scanner.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

D28 · Secrets (history)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: REDACTED scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)3.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

30 finding(s): 0 critical, 21 high, 9 medium, 0 low. 17 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/CommonUtils.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt` (line 194) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 17 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 (17 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 4 medium, 0 low. semgrep could not parse 3 file(s) — `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/CommonUtils.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/ShareReflectUtil.kt` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

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

2 of 184 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt. Counted over 184 of the 345 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×2app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

Strongest change-coupling: Constants.kt↔SettingUtils.kt 79%; TasksEditFragment.kt↔Constants.kt 62%; Constants.kt↔HttpServerUtils.kt 57%

Change coupling: MsgInfo.kt ↔ LogsFragment.kt · ×2app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt:1
Change-coupling hub: Constants.kt → SettingsFragment.kt, TasksEditFragment.kt, HttpServerUtils.kt, SettingUtils.ktapp/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/Constants.kt

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with MsgInfo.kt, SettingsFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Constants.kt. — 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.

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

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

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

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

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 2 platform declaration(s) and 48 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
  • No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

  • Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

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 (`./gradlew test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No logging call was found in the 339 JVM production file(s) this check read across 1 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (JVM: SLF4J, Log4j2, java.util.logging, Logback, kotlin-logging, scala-logging) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.

What to do

  • Adopt SLF4J (with a Logback or Log4j2 JSON encoder) and log at meaningful points in the modules you run.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) and a health-check endpoint (Spring Boot Actuator's /actuator/health, or a /health route) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 9566 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • `.openConnection(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:163

What to do

  • Set connect and read timeouts on every client (`RestTemplateBuilder.connectTimeout/readTimeout`, WebClient `responseTimeout`, `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout`, `HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout`, Feign `connectTimeout`/`readTimeout` in configuration), and wrap calls to dependencies in resilience4j `@Retry`/`@CircuitBreaker`/`@TimeLimiter` (or Spring Retry).
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 18 use(s) across 47,368 production line(s) (~0.4/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
  • Kotlin: on hot paths, use primitive arrays (IntArray, LongArray …) and @JvmInline value classes instead of boxed values, primitive collections (androidx.collection, fastutil) instead of boxed ones, and presize collections and StringBuilders.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

X1 · Async correctness6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The `Deferred` this starts is not kept anywhere, and `GlobalScope` has no parent job: `async` holds any exception its block throws until somebody calls `await`, so once nobody holds the `Deferred` the error is gone — not rethrown, not printed, not passed to a `CoroutineExceptionHandler` — and nothing can wait for the work to finish either. Start the work in a structured scope the caller owns (`coroutineScope { async { … } }`, or a scope tied to the component's lifetime) and `await` it, or, for genuine fire-and-forget, use `launch` — whose failure reaches the uncaught-exception handler — or catch and report inside the block itself. — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/service/ForegroundService.kt:279

What to do

  • `GlobalScope.async` result is not kept
X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `FileInputStream(…)` opens something that has to be given back — a file descriptor, a socket, a directory handle — and it is held in `pfxInputStream`, and every later use of `pfxInputStream` in its block reads a member through it — it is never returned, passed, stored, captured by a lambda, reassigned or released, so this expression both creates the value and is the last place that can release it, and does not. Every call leaks one more open handle until the collector happens to reach it: `Too many open files` under load, and on Windows a file that cannot be replaced or deleted while it is held. Open it with `FileInputStream(…).use { r -> … }`, which releases it on every path including a throw, or hold it and call `.close()` in a `finally`. — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:650

What to do

  • Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.
X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for (x in c)` or `c.forEach { … }` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a `mutableListOf`/`ArrayList`, `mutableMapOf`/`HashMap` or `mutableSetOf`/`HashSet` is a `java.util` collection on the JVM and is walked by its own fail-fast iterator, so a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step throw `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen.

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

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

X3 · Exception handling7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×2) — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:100, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:745
  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:283
  • `catch (ignore: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/ShareReflectUtil.kt:220
  • `catch (thr: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/ShareReflectUtil.kt:236

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether Kotlin's null safety is not undermined by not-null assertions — `String` cannot hold null and `String?` must be checked before use in every Kotlin module, and each `!!` is a run-time `NullPointerException` the author has told the compiler cannot happen.

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

  • ~54.5 `!!` not-null assertions per 1k Kotlin product lines — 2587 across the 47474 line(s) of the 339 Kotlin file(s) read (generated, test and sample code not counted). Densest: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt (391), app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt (120), app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt (95). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null and becomes a `NullPointerException` the first time the author is wrong.

What to do

  • Replace `!!` rather than adding to it: each is a run-time null check the compiler could not prove. Narrow the value with a null check, an early return or `?: return`, use `?.` / `?:` where absence is legitimate, `requireNotNull(x) { "why" }` / `checkNotNull` where a missing value is a contract breach worth a message, make the property non-nullable and set it in the constructor (or `by lazy`) instead of `lateinit` plus `!!`, or change the API so the null cannot arrive.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health67%Adequate — gated by D2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture88%Adequate — gated by D26Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity48%Weak — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness19%Critical — gated by D8, D9, P2, P3, P7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security56%Adequate — gated by D29, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance78%StrongStrongest area.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 23 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 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.

  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 57 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Kotlin imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the Android app did not build — `./gradlew :app:assembleDebug` exited -1: Tool stalled (no output) after 00:02:15.0081677.; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because app/build.gradle applies the Android application plugin and gradlew builds it) This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the app is inaccessible, only that it was never run.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
  • 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.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named column (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone_number, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, 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 field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
  • D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
  • D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency currency not established — oss.sonatype.org did not answer
  • D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 48 declared JVM dependency coordinate(s) were read from its 2 Maven/Gradle manifest(s), but Maven Central could not be asked for the licence of 48 of them (HTTP 429 Too Many Requests from https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/paho/org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3/1.2.5/org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3-1.2.5.pom), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.kt), 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.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
  • 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
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 65 value object(s); 6 repository port(s) loading or saving an aggregate/entity
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Kotlin was read, and it logs through none that an assembled message defeats: Android's `Log` and Timber, java.util.logging and log4j-api-kotlin take one finished message (as log4net does in C#), or it makes no call through a named logger at all. Calls made through SLF4J, log4j 2 or kotlin-logging (`LoggerFactory.getLogger`, `KotlinLogging.logger {}`) would be judged.
  • 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.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 26 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1
  • No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (JUnit (with Kotest or MockK on Kotlin)), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen.
Serious — 434 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×50
  • TodoComment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/WebViewInterceptDialog.kt:98 — // TODO: 修改你的applink — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:57 — //TODO:允许主线程访问，后面再优化 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/dao/FrpcDao.kt:36 — //TODO:允许主线程访问，后面再优化 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/viewmodel/TaskViewModel.kt:29 — //TODO:根据条件查询，暂不使用 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:395 — //TODO: 删除前确认 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:171 — //TODO：低版本Android解析Cron表达式会报错，暂时不处理 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:1628 — //TODO：低版本Android解析Cron表达式会报错，暂时不处理 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:1633 — //TODO：支持多语言 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:210 — //TODO:判断Sheme是否有效 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:230 — //TODO: 替换mailType为当前语言，避免切换语言后失效，历史包袱怎么替换比较优雅？ — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt:74 — //TODO：准确获取卡槽信息，目前测试结果只有 subscription 相对靠谱 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/BluetoothReceiver.kt:62 — //TODO: 实测这里一台设备会收到两次广播 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/BluetoothReceiver.kt:71 — //TODO: 放在这里去判断是否已经发现某个设备（避免 ACTION_FOUND 重复广播） — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/server/controller/SmsController.kt:40 — //TODO：取不到卡槽信息时，采用默认卡槽发送 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt:144 — //TODO：取不到卡槽信息时，采用默认卡槽发送 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SmsUtils.kt:63 — //TODO：取不到卡槽信息时，采用默认卡槽发送 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:136 — //TODO：取不到卡槽信息时，采用默认卡槽发送 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/service/NotificationService.kt:112 — //TODO：自动消除通知（临时方案，重复查询换取准确性） — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:306 — //TODO:暂时不支持华为 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/CommonUtils.kt:230 — //TODO:怎么测试反向引用是否正确？ — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/interceptor/NoContentInterceptor.kt:38 — //TODO: 暂时特殊处理，更新日志状态为成功 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/SmimeUtils.kt:205 — //TODO: 为什么不需要再设置这些？ — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:176 — // TODO: MarkdownV2 要求转义以下字符，实测不能全部转义（丢失格式） — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:383 — //TODO: OpenPGP 只签名不加密时，提示无效的数字签名，暂未解决 — 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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt:235 — //TODO: 判断消息是否满足条件 — 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.
  • + 25 more in this group — see findings.md.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×18
  • MethodTooLong: AppDatabase.frpcDao app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:37 — MethodTooLong — frpcDao runs 297 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 197 over it, 2.97× 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: AppDatabase.msgDao app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:38 — MethodTooLong — msgDao runs 296 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 196 over it, 2.96× 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: AppDatabase.logsDao app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:39 — MethodTooLong — logsDao runs 295 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 195 over it, 2.95× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: AppDatabase.ruleDao app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:40 — MethodTooLong — ruleDao runs 294 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 194 over it, 2.94× 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: AppDatabase.senderDao app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:41 — MethodTooLong — senderDao runs 293 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 193 over it, 2.93× 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: AppDatabase.taskDao app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/AppDatabase.kt:42 — MethodTooLong — taskDao runs 292 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 192 over it, 2.92× 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: ActionWorker.doWork app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:82 — MethodTooLong — doWork runs 290 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 190 over it, 2.90× 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: Companion.sendMsg app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:35 — MethodTooLong — sendMsg runs 260 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 160 over it, 2.60× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: Companion.sendMsg app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:41 — MethodTooLong — sendMsg runs 180 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 80 over it, 1.80× 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: Companion.checkCondition app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt:49 — MethodTooLong — checkCondition runs 155 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 55 over it, 1.55× 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: ServerFragment.initListeners app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:79 — MethodTooLong — initListeners runs 142 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.42× 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: App.switchLanguage app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/App.kt:401 — MethodTooLong — switchLanguage runs 121 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 21 over it, 1.21× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: AlarmFragment.onClick app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:165 — MethodTooLong — onClick runs 114 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.14× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: WolSendFragment.onClick app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:82 — MethodTooLong — onClick runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13× 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: EmailFragment.checkSetting app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:357 — MethodTooLong — checkSetting runs 112 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.12× 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: App.onCreate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/App.kt:155 — MethodTooLong — onCreate runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× 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: EmailFragment.initViews app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:120 — MethodTooLong — initViews runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× 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: SettingsFragment.initListeners app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:157 — MethodTooLong — initListeners runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× 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.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×8
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:137 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:137-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:126-136 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:409 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:409-419 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:203-213 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 105 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:409` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:420` calls `checkSenderLogicShow` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:214` 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 (11 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:565 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:565-575 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:235-245 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 (11 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:494 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:494-504 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:234-244 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:494` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:539 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:539-549 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:217-227 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:539` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:613 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:613-623 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:257-267 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:613` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:65 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:65-75 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt:120-130 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:52 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:52-62 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt:42-52 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 44 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×8
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:437 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:437-446 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:466-475 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 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. 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:523 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:523-532 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:315-324 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:523` 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 (10 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1430 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1430-1439 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:417-426 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1430` 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 (10 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:131 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:131-140 | REDACTED:121-130 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 14 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 175 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:131` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:146 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:146-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:134-143 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 191 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:146` 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 × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:40 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:40-49 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt:30-39 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 44 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 × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:104 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:104-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:146-155 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt` 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:104` 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 (10 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:66 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:66-75 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:129-138 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×8
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1128 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1128-1132 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1141-1145 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1128` 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 (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:170 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:170-174 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/NetworkFragment.kt:87-91 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:170` 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 (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:89 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:89-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:89-93 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:89` 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 (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:223 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:223-227 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:216-220 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:223` 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 (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:143 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:143-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:139-143 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 111 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:143` 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 (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:59 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:59-63 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:66-75 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:59` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:519 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:519-523 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:497-501 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 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 (5 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:87 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:87-91 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:291-295 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×8
  • Low cohesion: AgentWebFragment (LCOM4 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:65 — AgentWebFragment's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: FrpcSpinnerItem (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerItem.kt:6 — FrpcSpinnerItem'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.
  • Low cohesion: RuleSpinnerItem (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerItem.kt:6 — RuleSpinnerItem'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.
  • Low cohesion: SenderSpinnerItem (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerItem.kt:6 — SenderSpinnerItem'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.
  • Low cohesion: TaskSpinnerItem (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerItem.kt:6 — TaskSpinnerItem'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.
  • Low cohesion: SettingsFragment (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:90 — SettingsFragment'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.
  • Low cohesion: NotificationFragment (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:65 — NotificationFragment'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.
  • Low cohesion: SettingsFragment (LCOM4 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:55 — SettingsFragment'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.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×6
  • ClassTooLong: CronFragment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:42 — ClassTooLong — 1077 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 27 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 677 over it, 2.69× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • ClassTooLong: SettingsFragment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:90 — ClassTooLong — 869 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 39 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 469 over it, 2.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • ClassTooLong: RulesEditFragment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:101 — ClassTooLong — 537 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 16 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 137 over it, 1.34× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • ClassTooLong: TasksEditFragment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:54 — ClassTooLong — 477 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 17 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 77 over it, 1.19× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • ClassTooLong: EmailFragment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:71 — ClassTooLong — 451 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 17 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 51 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • ClassTooLong: PhoneUtils app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:44 — ClassTooLong — 402 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 1 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.01× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:170 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:170-181 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:122-133 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:170` 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 × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:729 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:729-740 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:303-314 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:729` 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 × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:52 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:52-63 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt:107-118 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:103 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:103-114 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt:79-90 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 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 (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/update/XHttpUpdateHttpServiceImpl.kt:31 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/update/XHttpUpdateHttpServiceImpl.kt:31-42 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/update/XHttpUpdateHttpServiceImpl.kt:52-63 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/update/XHttpUpdateHttpServiceImpl.kt: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 (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:82 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt:82-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt:58-69 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HistoryUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SharedPreference.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 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.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×5
  • FileTooLong: condition/CronFragment.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt — FileTooLong — 1116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: CronFragment (42-1644). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 616 over it, 2.23× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
  • FileTooLong: fragment/SettingsFragment.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt — FileTooLong — 956 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 91% of them inside a single declaration: SettingsFragment (90-1441). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 456 over it, 1.91× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
  • FileTooLong: fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt — FileTooLong — 635 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 85% of them inside a single declaration: RulesEditFragment (101-883). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 135 over it, 1.27× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
  • FileTooLong: fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt — FileTooLong — 527 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 91% of them inside a single declaration: TasksEditFragment (54-730). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.05× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
  • FileTooLong: senders/EmailFragment.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt — FileTooLong — 519 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 87% of them inside a single declaration: EmailFragment (71-742). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.04× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:84 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:84-92 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/RuleRecyclerAdapter.kt:88-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/SenderRecyclerAdapter.kt:78-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskRecyclerAdapter.kt:78-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskSettingAdapter.kt:78-86 — 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.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:95 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:95-106 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/RuleRecyclerAdapter.kt:99-110 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/SenderRecyclerAdapter.kt:89-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskRecyclerAdapter.kt:89-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskSettingAdapter.kt:89-100 — 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.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:62 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:62-77 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:64-91 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt:64-87 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerAdapter.kt:64-87 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerAdapter.kt:64-87 — 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.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:79 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:79-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:93-122 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt:89-118 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerAdapter.kt:89-118 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerAdapter.kt:89-118 — 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.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:203 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:203-273 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:151-173 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LockScreenFragment.kt:111-135 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/NetworkFragment.kt:95-119 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/SimFragment.kt:75-99 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:500 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:500-515 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:525-540 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:500` 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 (16 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:352 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:352-367 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:166-181 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:352` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:407 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:407-422 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:201-216 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:407` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:281 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:281-296 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:269-284 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 191 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:281` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:90 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:90-105 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:153-168 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:90` 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.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×4
  • Hotspot: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:35 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 44 in EmailUtils.sendMsg at line 35. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-16..2026-09-14, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-16 14:46:28 +08:00' --until='2026-09-14 14:46:28 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:41 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 43 in WebhookUtils.sendMsg at line 41. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-16..2026-09-14, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-16 14:46:28 +08:00' --until='2026-09-14 14:46:28 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:31 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in BarkUtils.sendMsg at line 31. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-16..2026-09-14, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-16 14:46:28 +08:00' --until='2026-09-14 14:46:28 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:28 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.sendMsg at line 28. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-16..2026-09-14, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-16 14:46:28 +08:00' --until='2026-09-14 14:46:28 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/base/broccoli/BroccoliRecyclerAdapter.kt:23 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/base/broccoli/BroccoliRecyclerAdapter.kt:23-35 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/base/broccoli/BroccoliSimpleDelegateAdapter.kt:40-52 — 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. 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 (13 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:490 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:490-502 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:293-305 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:490` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:189 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:189-201 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:177-189 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 191 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 (13 lines × 2) REDACTED:76 — REDACTED:76-88 | REDACTED:88-100 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 152 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:817 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:817-824 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:433-440 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:817` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:453 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:453-460 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:414-421 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 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 (8 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:504 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:504-511 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:482-489 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 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 (8 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:606 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:606-613 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:378-385 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:734 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:734-740 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:444-450 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:734` 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 (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:94 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:94-101 | REDACTED:59-65 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:94` 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 (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:82 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:82-88 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:82-88 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:44 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:44-50 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:38-44 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:44` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/activity/MainActivity.kt:290 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/activity/MainActivity.kt:290-295 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/AppListFragment.kt:128-133 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/activity/MainActivity.kt: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 (6 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:763 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:763-768 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:397-402 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:859 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:859-864 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:468-473 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:859` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:120 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:120-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:110-115 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 16 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 191 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:120` 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 first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `model` to `CallInfo` in one and `SmsInfo` 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.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×4
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:100 — `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:745 — `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/ShareReflectUtil.kt:220 — `catch (ignore: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/ShareReflectUtil.kt:236 — `catch (thr: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:337 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:337-354 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:59-76 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:92-109 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:337` 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 (18 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:450 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:450-467 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:339-356 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:243-260 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:450` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:470 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:470-487 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:359-376 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:263-280 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:470` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:324 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:324-338 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:208-222 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:324` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:231 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:231-245 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:287-301 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:231` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:65 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:65-79 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:65-79 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:142 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:142-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:292-302 | REDACTED:263-273 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:280-290 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:142` 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 × 4) REDACTED:164 — REDACTED:164-174 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:177-187 | REDACTED:182-192 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:221-231 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 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 `REDACTED:164` 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 before the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:219` calls `Gson`, `toJson` and `REDACTED:162` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:98 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:98-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:148-158 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt:67-77 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkRobotUtils.kt:61-71 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt` 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:98` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcPagingAdapter.kt:51 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcPagingAdapter.kt:51-60 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/RulePagingAdapter.kt:52-61 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/SenderPagingAdapter.kt:30-39 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcPagingAdapter.kt:51` 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `MyViewHolder` names `cn.ppps.forwarder.adapter.FrpcPagingAdapter.MyViewHolder` in one and `cn.ppps.forwarder.adapter.RulePagingAdapter.MyViewHolder` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:111 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:111-120 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:75-84 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:107-116 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:111` 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 (10 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:92 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:92-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt:32-41 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/ServerchanUtils.kt:30-39 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 44 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:252 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:252-260 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RuleLine.kt:127-135 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:252` 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) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:589 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:589-597 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:680-688 — 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 (9 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:248 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:248-256 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:243-251 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 146 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:254 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:254-260 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:237-243 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:260-266 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:278-284 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 139 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:262 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:262-268 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:245-251 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:268-274 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:286-292 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 139 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/DingtalkInnerRobotSetting.kt:22 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/DingtalkInnerRobotSetting.kt:22-28 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/TelegramSetting.kt:25-31 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/WebhookSetting.kt:30-36 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/WeworkAgentSetting.kt:24-30 — 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 before the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/TelegramSetting.kt:21` calls `getMethodCheckId` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/setting/DingtalkInnerRobotSetting.kt: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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 17) · ×2
  • SettingsFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1398 — SettingsFragment.initAppSpinner has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • SettingsFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:385 — SettingsFragment.initAppSpinner has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: MsgInfo.kt ↔ LogsFragment.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt:1 — `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/LogsFragment.kt` change together 50% of the time (5 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) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `5e0537e1` 新增：转发日志增加筛选器方便搜索/批量删除 #433 (at that commit the files were still `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/fragment/LogsFragment.kt`); `a4aade94` 回退：`{{通知Scheme}}`(英文系统`{{SCHEME}}`)标签以获取应用通知的`Scheme` #272 #276（无解，去除… (at that commit the files were still `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/fragment/LogsFragment.kt`); `e4432cb0` 优化：多语言切换时枚举常量自动切换语言 (at that commit the files were still `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/fragment/LogsFragment.kt`) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: SettingsFragment.kt ↔ SmsReceiver.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1 — `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt` change together 50% of the time (5 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) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ac74a183` 新增：彩信转发功能（试验） #351 (at that commit the files were still `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt`); `2c9065a7` 新增：短信指令打开或关闭 WiFi #316 （试验性） (at that commit the files were still `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt`); `6571775a` 新增：短信指令（根据短信指令开关对应功能） #I5YX3F (at that commit the files were still `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/idormy/sms/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt`) — run `git show` on any of them.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (12 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (12 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:322 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:322-434 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:49-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:203-302 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:264-362 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:365-484 | REDACTED:69-178 | REDACTED:179-273 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:83-187 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:191-290 | REDACTED:81-196 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:82-235 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:82-502 — 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.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (12 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:165 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:165-331 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:95-138 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt:130-173 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:143-186 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:207-264 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:102-145 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:135-178 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:140-228 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:136-179 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:339-382 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:136-179 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:121-180 — 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 (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:40 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:40-120 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:130-220 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:37-154 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:48-288 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:39-116 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:126-207 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:29 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:29-163 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:26-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/CronWorker.kt:26-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:30-186 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:37-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SimWorker.kt:30-96 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:717 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:717-730 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:373-386 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 (14 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/server/controller/SmsController.kt:30 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/server/controller/SmsController.kt:30-43 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt:134-147 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/server/controller/SmsController.kt: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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:241 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:241-253 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:205-217 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:157-169 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:241` 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 (13 lines × 3) REDACTED:166 — REDACTED:166-178 | REDACTED:184-196 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:223-235 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 152 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 `REDACTED:166` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:63 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:63-71 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:65-73 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt:65-73 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerAdapter.kt:65-73 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerAdapter.kt:65-73 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt` 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.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:253 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:253-262 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:154-162 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LockScreenFragment.kt:115-124 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/NetworkFragment.kt:99-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/SimFragment.kt:79-88 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:253` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:295 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:295-303 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:289-297 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:289-297 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseContainerFragment.kt:68 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseContainerFragment.kt:68-76 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseFragment.kt:115-123 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseSimpleListFragment.kt:38-46 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseSimpleListFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: 87% 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:121 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:121-125 | REDACTED:113-117 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:111-115 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 14 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 175 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:121` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:119` calls `post` and `REDACTED:111` 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 × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:151 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:151-155 | REDACTED:133-137 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:139-143 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 14 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 175 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:151` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt:275 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt:275-280 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:164-169 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:203-208 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:54 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:54-59 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:159-164 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:147-152 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:54` 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cyclomatic 73) · ×1
  • ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cyclomatic 73) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt:49 — ConditionUtils.checkCondition has cyclomatic complexity 73 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ActionWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 65) · ×1
  • ActionWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 65) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:82 — ActionWorker.doWork has cyclomatic complexity 65 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 44) · ×1
  • EmailUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 44) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:35 — EmailUtils.sendMsg has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WebhookUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 43) · ×1
  • WebhookUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 43) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:41 — WebhookUtils.sendMsg has cyclomatic complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 35) · ×1
  • EmailFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 35) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:357 — EmailFragment.checkSetting has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SmsCommandUtils.execute (cyclomatic 32) · ×1
  • SmsCommandUtils.execute (cyclomatic 32) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt:36 — SmsCommandUtils.execute has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RulesEditFragment.checkForm (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • RulesEditFragment.checkForm (cyclomatic 28) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:616 — RulesEditFragment.checkForm has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · LocationWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • LocationWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 28) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:30 — LocationWorker.doWork has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AlarmFragment.onClick (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • AlarmFragment.onClick (cyclomatic 25) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:165 — AlarmFragment.onClick has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SendUtils.sendMsgSender (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • SendUtils.sendMsgSender (cyclomatic 25) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SendUtils.kt:92 — SendUtils.sendMsgSender has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ChargeFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • ChargeFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:175 — ChargeFragment.checkSetting has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PhoneUtils.getCallInfoList (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • PhoneUtils.getCallInfoList (cyclomatic 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:251 — PhoneUtils.getCallInfoList has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ClientFragment.queryConfig (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • ClientFragment.queryConfig (cyclomatic 23) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:322 — ClientFragment.queryConfig has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SmsReceiver.onReceive (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • SmsReceiver.onReceive (cyclomatic 23) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt:30 — SmsReceiver.onReceive has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NetworkWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • NetworkWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 23) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:37 — NetworkWorker.doWork has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation (cyclomatic 22) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:609 — SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RulesEditFragment.testRule (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • RulesEditFragment.testRule (cyclomatic 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:754 — RulesEditFragment.testRule has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TasksEditFragment.onItemClick (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • TasksEditFragment.onItemClick (cyclomatic 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:542 — TasksEditFragment.onItemClick has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MsgFragment.checkForm (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • MsgFragment.checkForm (cyclomatic 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:327 — MsgFragment.checkForm has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NotificationService.onNotificationPosted (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • NotificationService.onNotificationPosted (cyclomatic 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/service/NotificationService.kt:49 — NotificationService.onNotificationPosted has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BluetoothWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • BluetoothWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:26 — BluetoothWorker.doWork has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · LogsFragment.initLogsFilterDialog (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • LogsFragment.initLogsFilterDialog (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/LogsFragment.kt:219 — LogsFragment.initLogsFilterDialog has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SettingsFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:157 — SettingsFragment.initListeners has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SettingsFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:430 — SettingsFragment.checkSetting has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CronFragment.initDayInputHelper (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initDayInputHelper (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:743 — CronFragment.initDayInputHelper has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailFragment.initViews (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • EmailFragment.initViews (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:120 — EmailFragment.initViews has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BatteryWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • BatteryWorker.doWork (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:29 — BatteryWorker.doWork has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CronFragment.initWeekInputHelper (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initWeekInputHelper (cyclomatic 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:1122 — CronFragment.initWeekInputHelper has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BarkUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • BarkUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:31 — BarkUtils.sendMsg has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TelegramUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • TelegramUtils.sendMsg (cyclomatic 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:30 — TelegramUtils.sendMsg has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · App.onCreate (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • App.onCreate (cyclomatic 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/App.kt:155 — App.onCreate has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MainActivity.onItemSelected (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • MainActivity.onItemSelected (cyclomatic 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/activity/MainActivity.kt:253 — MainActivity.onItemSelected has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ChargeSetting.<init> (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • ChargeSetting.<init> (cyclomatic 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/condition/ChargeSetting.kt:24 — ChargeSetting.<init> has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ServerFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • ServerFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:79 — ServerFragment.initListeners has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SettingsFragment.switchEnablePhone (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.switchEnablePhone (cyclomatic 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:392 — SettingsFragment.switchEnablePhone has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WolSendFragment.onClick (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • WolSendFragment.onClick (cyclomatic 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:82 — WolSendFragment.onClick has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ClientFragment.onItemClick (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • ClientFragment.onItemClick (cyclomatic 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:299 — ClientFragment.onItemClick 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MsgFragment.testRule (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • MsgFragment.testRule (cyclomatic 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:388 — MsgFragment.testRule has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailSender.sendEmail (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • EmailSender.sendEmail (cyclomatic 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/EmailSender.kt:79 — EmailSender.sendEmail has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SocketUtils.sendMqttSuspend (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • SocketUtils.sendMqttSuspend (cyclomatic 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:190 — SocketUtils.sendMqttSuspend has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NetworkSetting.<init> (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • NetworkSetting.<init> (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/condition/NetworkSetting.kt:14 — NetworkSetting.<init> has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ServerFragment.onClick (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • ServerFragment.onClick (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:294 — ServerFragment.onClick has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MsgFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • MsgFragment.initListeners (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:169 — MsgFragment.initListeners has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BarkFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • BarkFragment.checkSetting (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:255 — BarkFragment.checkSetting has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Base64.decode (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • Base64.decode (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/Base64.kt:47 — Base64.decode has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ActionWorker.doWork (cognitive 147) · ×1
  • ActionWorker.doWork (cognitive 147) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:82 — ActionWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 147 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49 (118 pts), error handling 5 (17 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 87). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cognitive 126) · ×1
  • ConditionUtils.checkCondition (cognitive 126) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/task/ConditionUtils.kt:49 — ConditionUtils.checkCondition has cognitive complexity 126 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 38 (102 pts), boolean chains 15, match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 69). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmailFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 73) · ×1
  • EmailFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 73) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:357 — EmailFragment.checkSetting has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (33 pts), error handling 6 (22 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 1 (nesting depth added 39). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WebhookUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 73) · ×1
  • WebhookUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 73) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:41 — WebhookUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 36 (53 pts), boolean chains 10, match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhoneUtils.getCallInfoList (cognitive 63) · ×1
  • PhoneUtils.getCallInfoList (cognitive 63) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:251 — PhoneUtils.getCallInfoList has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (54 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 35). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SmsCommandUtils.execute (cognitive 61) · ×1
  • SmsCommandUtils.execute (cognitive 61) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt:36 — SmsCommandUtils.execute has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (54 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 32). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LocationWorker.doWork (cognitive 53) · ×1
  • LocationWorker.doWork (cognitive 53) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:30 — LocationWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (35 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 26). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmailUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 49) · ×1
  • EmailUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 49) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/EmailUtils.kt:35 — EmailUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (31 pts), match/switch 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 5, error handling 3 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NetworkWorker.doWork (cognitive 46) · ×1
  • NetworkWorker.doWork (cognitive 46) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:37 — NetworkWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (40 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), error handling 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LogsFragment.initLogsFilterDialog (cognitive 44) · ×1
  • LogsFragment.initLogsFilterDialog (cognitive 44) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/LogsFragment.kt:219 — LogsFragment.initLogsFilterDialog has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (38 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BatteryWorker.doWork (cognitive 43) · ×1
  • BatteryWorker.doWork (cognitive 43) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:29 — BatteryWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (35 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 24). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SmsReceiver.onReceive (cognitive 40) · ×1
  • SmsReceiver.onReceive (cognitive 40) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt:30 — SmsReceiver.onReceive has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4, error handling 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 39) · ×1
  • DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 39) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:28 — DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (31 pts), loops 2 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TaskPagingAdapter.onBindViewHolder (cognitive 38) · ×1
  • TaskPagingAdapter.onBindViewHolder (cognitive 38) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskPagingAdapter.kt:29 — TaskPagingAdapter.onBindViewHolder has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (30 pts), loops 2 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmailFragment.initViews (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • EmailFragment.initViews (cognitive 37) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:120 — EmailFragment.initViews has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (26 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClientFragment.queryConfig (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • ClientFragment.queryConfig (cognitive 35) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:322 — ClientFragment.queryConfig has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (27 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TasksEditFragment.onItemClick (cognitive 34) · ×1
  • TasksEditFragment.onItemClick (cognitive 34) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:542 — TasksEditFragment.onItemClick has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BluetoothWorker.doWork (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • BluetoothWorker.doWork (cognitive 33) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:26 — BluetoothWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BarkUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • BarkUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 31) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:31 — BarkUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (30 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NotificationService.onNotificationPosted (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • NotificationService.onNotificationPosted (cognitive 30) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/service/NotificationService.kt:49 — NotificationService.onNotificationPosted has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (24 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TelegramUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • TelegramUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 30) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:30 — TelegramUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (23 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RulesEditFragment.testRule (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • RulesEditFragment.testRule (cognitive 28) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:754 — RulesEditFragment.testRule has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (22 pts), match/switch 3, error handling 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WolSendFragment.onClick (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • WolSendFragment.onClick (cognitive 28) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:82 — WolSendFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), error handling 3 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Base64.decode (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • Base64.decode (cognitive 27) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/Base64.kt:47 — Base64.decode has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhoneUtils.sendSms (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • PhoneUtils.sendSms (cognitive 27) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:188 — PhoneUtils.sendSms has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhoneUtils.getSmsInfoList (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • PhoneUtils.getSmsInfoList (cognitive 27) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:556 — PhoneUtils.getSmsInfoList has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (24 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TasksEditFragment.onFragmentResult (cognitive 26) · ×1
  • TasksEditFragment.onFragmentResult (cognitive 26) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:615 — TasksEditFragment.onFragmentResult has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (26 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · App.onCreate (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • App.onCreate (cognitive 25) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/App.kt:155 — App.onCreate has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (19 pts), error handling 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.initListeners (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.initListeners (cognitive 25) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:157 — SettingsFragment.initListeners has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (24 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SmsSendFragment.onClick (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • SmsSendFragment.onClick (cognitive 25) REDACTED:81 — SmsSendFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), error handling 3 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.startToAutoStartSetting (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.startToAutoStartSetting (cognitive 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1348 — SettingsFragment.startToAutoStartSetting has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), error handling 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HttpServerFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • HttpServerFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:190 — HttpServerFragment.checkSetting has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (24 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:430 — SettingsFragment.checkSetting has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, match/switch 2, boolean chains 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChargeFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • ChargeFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:175 — ChargeFragment.checkSetting has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, boolean chains 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initWeekInputHelper (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initWeekInputHelper (cognitive 24) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:1122 — CronFragment.initWeekInputHelper has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClientFragment.onClick (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • ClientFragment.onClick (cognitive 22) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:221 — ClientFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RulesEditFragment.checkForm (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • RulesEditFragment.checkForm (cognitive 22) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:616 — RulesEditFragment.checkForm has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (16 pts), match/switch 4, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initDayInputHelper (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initDayInputHelper (cognitive 22) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:743 — CronFragment.initDayInputHelper has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MsgFragment.testRule (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • MsgFragment.testRule (cognitive 22) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:388 — MsgFragment.testRule has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (17 pts), match/switch 3, boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BluetoothSetting.<init> (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • BluetoothSetting.<init> (cognitive 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/condition/BluetoothSetting.kt:18 — BluetoothSetting.<init> has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), match/switch 3 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FrpcFragment.onItemClicked (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • FrpcFragment.onItemClicked (cognitive 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/FrpcFragment.kt:142 — FrpcFragment.onItemClicked has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AlarmFragment.onClick (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • AlarmFragment.onClick (cognitive 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:165 — AlarmFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LeaveAddressFragment.initListeners (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • LeaveAddressFragment.initListeners (cognitive 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:96 — LeaveAddressFragment.initListeners has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), error handling 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ToAddressFragment.initListeners (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • ToAddressFragment.initListeners (cognitive 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:96 — ToAddressFragment.initListeners has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), error handling 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PushplusUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • PushplusUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 21) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt:24 — PushplusUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AlarmFragment.initViews (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • AlarmFragment.initViews (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:76 — AlarmFragment.initViews has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (20 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContactAddFragment.onClick (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • ContactAddFragment.onClick (cognitive 20) REDACTED:69 — ContactAddFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), error handling 3 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:242 — CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 4 other methods here (CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper, CronFragment.initHourInputHelper, CronFragment.initMonthInputHelper, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 5 times rather than 5 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 4 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 5 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:409 — CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 4 other methods here (CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper, CronFragment.initHourInputHelper, CronFragment.initMonthInputHelper, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 5 times rather than 5 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 4 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 5 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initHourInputHelper (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initHourInputHelper (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:576 — CronFragment.initHourInputHelper has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 4 other methods here (CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper, CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper, CronFragment.initMonthInputHelper, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 5 times rather than 5 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 4 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 5 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initMonthInputHelper (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initMonthInputHelper (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:956 — CronFragment.initMonthInputHelper has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 4 other methods here (CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper, CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper, CronFragment.initHourInputHelper, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 5 times rather than 5 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 4 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 5 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronFragment.initYearInputHelper (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • CronFragment.initYearInputHelper (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:1335 — CronFragment.initYearInputHelper has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 4 other methods here (CronFragment.initSecondInputHelper, CronFragment.initMinuteInputHelper, CronFragment.initHourInputHelper, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 5 times rather than 5 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 4 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 5 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VibrationUtils.vibratePattern (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • VibrationUtils.vibratePattern (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/VibrationUtils.kt:60 — VibrationUtils.vibratePattern has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.sendTextMsg (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.sendTextMsg (cognitive 20) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:123 — DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.sendTextMsg has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RulesEditFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • RulesEditFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:490 — RulesEditFragment.initAppSpinner has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation (cognitive 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:609 — SettingsFragment.switchEnableLocation has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (15 pts), match/switch 4 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MsgFragment.initListeners (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • MsgFragment.initListeners (cognitive 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:169 — MsgFragment.initListeners has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MsgFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • MsgFragment.initAppSpinner (cognitive 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:282 — MsgFragment.initAppSpinner has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SocketUtils.sendMqttSuspend (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • SocketUtils.sendMqttSuspend (cognitive 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:190 — SocketUtils.sendMqttSuspend has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 3, error handling 3. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LockScreenWorker.doWork (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • LockScreenWorker.doWork (cognitive 19) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LockScreenWorker.kt:26 — LockScreenWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.switchEnablePhone (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.switchEnablePhone (cognitive 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:392 — SettingsFragment.switchEnablePhone has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BatteryQueryFragment.initViews (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • BatteryQueryFragment.initViews (cognitive 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:49 — BatteryQueryFragment.initViews has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LocationFragment.getLocation (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • LocationFragment.getLocation (cognitive 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:83 — LocationFragment.getLocation has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FeishuUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • FeishuUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:83 — FeishuUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SendWorker.doWork (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • SendWorker.doWork (cognitive 18) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SendWorker.kt:42 — SendWorker.doWork has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MsgInfo.replaceAppNameTag (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • MsgInfo.replaceAppNameTag (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/MsgInfo.kt:220 — MsgInfo.replaceAppNameTag has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServerFragment.onClick (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ServerFragment.onClick (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:294 — ServerFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CloneFragment.pullData (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • CloneFragment.pullData (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:365 — CloneFragment.pullData has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChargeFragment.initViews (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ChargeFragment.initViews (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:54 — ChargeFragment.initViews has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhoneUtils.getSimId (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • PhoneUtils.getSimId (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:678 — PhoneUtils.getSimId has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmailSender.sendEmail (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • EmailSender.sendEmail (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/EmailSender.kt:79 — EmailSender.sendEmail has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (7 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 2 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeworkAgentUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • WeworkAgentUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:32 — WeworkAgentUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeworkAgentUtils.sendTextMsg (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • WeworkAgentUtils.sendTextMsg (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:119 — WeworkAgentUtils.sendTextMsg has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeworkRobotUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • WeworkRobotUtils.sendMsg (cognitive 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkRobotUtils.kt:21 — WeworkRobotUtils.sendMsg has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AppListSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • AppListSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:79 — AppListSpinnerAdapter.onFilter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FrpcSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • FrpcSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:93 — FrpcSpinnerAdapter.onFilter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RuleSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • RuleSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt:89 — RuleSpinnerAdapter.onFilter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SenderSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • SenderSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerAdapter.kt:89 — SenderSpinnerAdapter.onFilter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TaskSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • TaskSpinnerAdapter.onFilter (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerAdapter.kt:89 — TaskSpinnerAdapter.onFilter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LockScreenSetting.<init> (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • LockScreenSetting.<init> (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/entity/condition/LockScreenSetting.kt:18 — LockScreenSetting.<init> has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClientFragment.onItemClick (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • ClientFragment.onItemClick (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:299 — ClientFragment.onItemClick has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 12, if/else 3, error handling 1. 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.onClick (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • SettingsFragment.onClick (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:239 — SettingsFragment.onClick has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), error handling 1, 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CallQueryFragment.loadRemoteData (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • CallQueryFragment.loadRemoteData (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:203 — CallQueryFragment.loadRemoteData has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SmsQueryFragment.loadRemoteData (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • SmsQueryFragment.loadRemoteData (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:191 — SmsQueryFragment.loadRemoteData has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BarkFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • BarkFragment.checkSetting (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:255 — BarkFragment.checkSetting has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, boolean chains 6. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HttpServerUtils.restoreSettings (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • HttpServerUtils.restoreSettings (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HttpServerUtils.kt:174 — HttpServerUtils.restoreSettings has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (8 pts), if/else 5 (7 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhoneUtils.getContactInfoList (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • PhoneUtils.getContactInfoList (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt:366 — PhoneUtils.getContactInfoList has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SendWorker.autoTaskProcess (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • SendWorker.autoTaskProcess (cognitive 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SendWorker.kt:123 — SendWorker.autoTaskProcess has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: SettingsFragment app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:90 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×1
  • Change-coupling hub: Constants.kt → SettingsFragment.kt, TasksEditFragment.kt, HttpServerUtils.kt, SettingUtils.kt app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/Constants.kt — `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/Constants.kt` changes together with 4 other files — `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/HttpServerUtils.kt`, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SettingUtils.kt` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (16 members, 30 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (16 members, 30 shared lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:89 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:89-183 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:85-140 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:87-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:120-271 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:84-153 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:85-151 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:83-134 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:84-145 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:82-130 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:88-160 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:84-148 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:85-141 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:87-133 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:90-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:87-149 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:85-136 — These 16 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 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 · Near-duplicate member family (15 members, 31 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (15 members, 31 shared lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:85 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:85-140 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:87-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:120-271 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:84-153 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:85-151 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:83-134 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:84-145 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:82-130 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:88-160 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:84-148 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:85-141 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:87-133 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:90-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:87-149 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:85-136 — These 15 members are variants of one another: a block of 31 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 (4 members, 14 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 14 shared lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:245 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:245-277 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:229-264 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:243-280 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:262-303 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 14 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 9 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 9 shared lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:149 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:149-169 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:143-160 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:154-174 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:151-169 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 9 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 13 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 13 shared lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:85 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:85-185 | REDACTED:80-167 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:84-173 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 13 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 3 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 3 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (70 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member pair (70 shared lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:754 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:754-882 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:388-483 — These two members are variants of one another: 70 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (43 corresponding lines) · ×1
  • Edited copy of a member (43 corresponding lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:490 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:490-532 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:282-324 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 43 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (42 corresponding lines) · ×1
  • Edited copy of a member (42 corresponding lines) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1398 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1398-1439 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:385-426 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 42 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:284 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:284-319 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:193-253 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:167-227 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:183-243 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:295-355 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:163-229 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:171-231 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:144-204 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:164-224 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:140-199 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:171-235 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:161-220 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:168-227 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:143-202 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:182-241 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:201-260 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:163-222 — These 17 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 17 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 17 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (14 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (14 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:38 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:38-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:35-128 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:40-120 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:130-220 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:33-84 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:94-162 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:90-178 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt:29-84 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt:31-97 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/ServerchanUtils.kt:29-83 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:37-154 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:39-116 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:126-207 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkRobotUtils.kt:28-90 — These 14 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 14 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 14 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:29 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:29-163 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:26-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:30-186 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LockScreenWorker.kt:26-90 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:37-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SendWorker.kt:123-177 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SimWorker.kt:30-96 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (62 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (62 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:97 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:97-158 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:97-158 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (51–53 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (51–53 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:239 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:239-291 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:175-225 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:239` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31–39 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (31–39 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseFragment.kt:203 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseFragment.kt:203-241 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseSimpleListFragment.kt:118-148 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseSimpleListFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: 87% 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/BaseFragment.kt:203` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32–38 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32–38 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/OpenKeychainMailUtils.kt:60 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/OpenKeychainMailUtils.kt:60-91 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:110-147 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5–32 lines × 17) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5–32 lines × 17) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:306 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:306-310 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:223-250 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:197-224 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:213-240 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:325-352 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:195-226 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:201-228 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:174-201 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:194-221 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:169-196 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:205-232 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:190-217 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:197-224 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:172-199 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:211-238 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:230-257 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:192-219 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:306` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:194` calls `content`, `positiveText` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:306` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 10) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 10) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:73 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:73-104 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:228-259 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:294-325 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:397-428 | REDACTED:106-137 | REDACTED:205-236 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:106-137 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:216-247 | REDACTED:124-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:160-191 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:73` 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, `REDACTED:139` calls `start` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:106` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:381 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:381-412 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:270-301 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:89 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:89-119 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:90-120 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 146 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:89` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:33 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:33-63 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:78-107 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:33` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25–30 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (25–30 lines × 6) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:61 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:61-85 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:166-190 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:96-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt:231-260 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:58-82 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:154-178 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt` 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:61` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:85` calls `ignoreHttpsCert` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:129` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29–30 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (29–30 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:173 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:173-202 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:167-195 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:173` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:122 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:122-151 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:166-195 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RSACrypt.kt:122` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:620 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:620-647 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:328-355 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:620` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:788 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:788-814 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:404-430 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:295 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:295-320 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:179-204 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:295` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/TinkerLoadLibrary.kt:128 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/TinkerLoadLibrary.kt:128-153 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/TinkerLoadLibrary.kt:166-189 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/tinker/TinkerLoadLibrary.kt:128` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:421 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:421-445 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:214-238 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 105 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:421` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:420` calls `checkSenderLogicShow` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:213` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23–25 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23–25 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/OpenKeychainMailUtils.kt:108 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/OpenKeychainMailUtils.kt:108-130 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:213-237 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/OpenKeychainMailUtils.kt:108` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:262 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:262-285 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RuleLine.kt:137-160 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:262` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:498 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:498-520 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:1405-1427 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:392-414 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:290-312 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:498` 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 first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `TextUtils` names `android.text.TextUtils` in one and `com.xuexiang.xrouter.utils.TextUtils` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:183 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:183-205 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:137-158 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:183` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:833 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:833-855 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt:442-464 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 244 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:833` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:89 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:89-109 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:91-111 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:87-107 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:88-108 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 127 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:89` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:59 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:59-79 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:122-142 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:59` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:83 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:83-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:97-115 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt:93-111 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerAdapter.kt:93-111 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerAdapter.kt:93-111 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt` 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/AppListSpinnerAdapter.kt:83` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:167 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:167-185 | REDACTED:149-167 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 14 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 175 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:167` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 10) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 10) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:108 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:108-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt:143-160 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:156-173 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:234-251 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:115-132 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:148-165 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:149-166 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:352-369 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:149-166 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:150-167 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:108` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 8) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 8) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:86 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:86-103 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:116-133 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:88-105 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:89-106 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:91-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:94-111 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:91-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:89-106 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 115 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:86` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:261 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:261-278 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:285-302 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16–18 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:269 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:269-284 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:194-211 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:269` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–18 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (3–18 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:157 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:157-174 | REDACTED:138-140 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:145-162 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 14 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 175 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:157` 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. 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:157` calls `Indefinite`, `format`, `getString` and `REDACTED:138` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–17 lines × 16) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–17 lines × 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:209 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:209-220 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:183-194 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:199-210 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:311-322 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:179-195 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:187-198 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:160-171 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:180-191 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:155-166 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:191-202 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:176-187 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:183-194 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:158-169 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:197-208 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:216-227 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:178-189 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt: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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:75 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:75-91 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt:75-87 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/SenderSpinnerAdapter.kt:75-87 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/TaskSpinnerAdapter.kt:75-87 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/RuleSpinnerAdapter.kt` 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/spinner/FrpcSpinnerAdapter.kt:75` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:423 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:423-439 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:312-328 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:216-232 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:423` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:420` calls `checkSenderLogicShow` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:213` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:87 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:87-103 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:88-104 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:87` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt:105` calls `setOpenOtherPageWays` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:104` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–16 lines × 16) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–16 lines × 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:131 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:131-143 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:102-114 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:104-116 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:200-212 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:112-127 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:113-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:100-112 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:101-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:96-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:126-138 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:98-110 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:99-111 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:101-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:104-116 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:101-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:99-111 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:131` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:99` calls `createTagButtons`, `requireContext` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:93` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:384 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:384-399 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:273-288 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:185-200 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:384` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 9) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 9) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:43 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:43-57 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:106-120 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:31-45 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:53-67 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:116-130 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LockScreenWorker.kt:31-45 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:50-64 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SendWorker.kt:130-144 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SimWorker.kt:34-48 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt: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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:49` calls `when` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:41` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 13) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 13) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:123 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:123-136 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:105-118 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:92-105 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:198-211 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:56-69 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:138-151 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:155-168 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt:61-74 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt:74-87 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/ServerchanUtils.kt:61-74 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:131-144 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:88-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:185-198 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 44 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:123` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:53` calls `ignoreHttpsCert` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:102` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 12) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 12) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:391 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:391-404 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:111-124 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:266-279 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:333-346 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:436-449 | REDACTED:146-159 | REDACTED:243-256 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:146-159 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:254-267 | REDACTED:164-177 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:200-213 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:459-472 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:391` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:388` calls `finish` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:108` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:145 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:145-158 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:170-181 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt: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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:152 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:152-162 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LockScreenFragment.kt:112-124 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/NetworkFragment.kt:96-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/SimFragment.kt:76-88 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ChargeFragment.kt:152` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:151 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:151-163 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:178-188 — 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:166` calls `applyPgpToOriginalMessage`, `sign`, `encryptMessage` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/mail/PgpUtils.kt:190` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:46 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:46-58 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/UrlSchemeUtils.kt:31-42 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (1–12 lines × 22) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (1–12 lines × 22) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:267 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:267-267 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:268-275 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:106-106 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:107-114 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt:141-141 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt:142-149 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:154-154 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:155-162 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:232-232 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:233-240 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:113-113 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:114-121 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:146-146 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:147-154 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:191-202 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:147-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:148-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:350-350 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:351-358 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:147-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:148-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:148-156 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:268` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:268` calls `setInputData`, `build` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:267` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 11) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 11) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:358 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:358-369 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:80-91 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:235-246 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:301-312 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:404-415 | REDACTED:113-124 | REDACTED:212-223 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:113-124 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:223-234 | REDACTED:131-142 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:167-178 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:358` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:226 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:226-237 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:351-362 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:370-381 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SendersFragment.kt:226` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–11 lines × 14) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–11 lines × 14) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:367 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:367-374 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:441-448 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:470-477 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:499-506 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:524-531 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:551-558 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:314-321 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:419-426 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:741-748 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:199-206 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:241-248 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:151-161 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:591-599 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:94-102 — there are 14 copies across 6 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 14 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:367` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:377` calls `setText`, `getString` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:324` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 12) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 12) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:360 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:360-370 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:82-92 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:237-247 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:303-313 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:406-416 | REDACTED:115-125 | REDACTED:214-224 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:115-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:225-235 | REDACTED:133-143 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:169-179 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:433-442 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ClientFragment.kt:360` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 8) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 8) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:219 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:219-229 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:388-398 | REDACTED:97-107 | REDACTED:196-206 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:207-217 | REDACTED:115-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:151-161 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:417-427 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 107 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:219` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:96 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:96-106 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/RuleRecyclerAdapter.kt:100-110 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/SenderRecyclerAdapter.kt:90-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskRecyclerAdapter.kt:90-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskSettingAdapter.kt:90-100 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 25) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 25) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:366 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:366-374 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:440-448 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:469-477 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:498-506 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:523-531 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:550-558 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:313-321 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:365-374 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:418-426 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:545-553 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:740-748 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:198-206 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:240-248 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:296-305 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:245-254 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:273-282 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:301-310 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:325-334 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:150-159 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:179-188 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:212-221 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:263-272 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:96-105 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:590-599 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:93-102 — there are 25 copies across 9 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 25 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:366` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:377` calls `setText`, `getString` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:324` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 11) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 11) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:52 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:52-60 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:206-214 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:273-281 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:374-382 | REDACTED:73-81 | REDACTED:182-190 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:85-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:194-202 | REDACTED:85-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:113-122 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:401-409 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:385` calls `getAppVersionCode` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:62` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:75 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:75-84 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:120-129 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:96-105 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:77-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:109-118 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 5 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt: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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 16) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:147 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:147-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:118-126 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:120-128 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:216-224 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:131-139 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:129-137 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:116-124 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:117-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:112-120 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:142-150 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:114-122 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:115-123 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:117-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:120-128 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:117-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:115-123 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:147` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 14) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 14) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:121 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:121-129 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:103-111 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:90-98 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:196-204 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:54-62 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:136-144 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuUtils.kt:153-161 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt:59-67 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/PushplusUtils.kt:72-80 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/ServerchanUtils.kt:59-67 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt:129-137 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:86-94 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt:183-191 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkRobotUtils.kt:66-74 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/GotifyUtils.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 44 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/BarkUtils.kt:121` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt:53` calls `ignoreHttpsCert` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkGroupRobotUtils.kt:102` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 10) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 10) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:141 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:141-148 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:291-298 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:350-357 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:471-479 | REDACTED:163-170 | REDACTED:262-269 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/LocationFragment.kt:176-183 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:279-286 | REDACTED:181-188 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:220-227 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:141` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:358` calls `finish` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/BatteryQueryFragment.kt:149` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:463 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:463-471 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:734-742 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:267-275 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:308-316 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:463` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) REDACTED:52 — REDACTED:52-59 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:58-66 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 148 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 `REDACTED:52` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 28) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 28) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:80 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:80-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:68-74 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt:94-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:74-80 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:119-125 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:68-74 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:94-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:85-92 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:95-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:95-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:95-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:75-82 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:108-114 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:88-94 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:90-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:123-129 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:87-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:88-94 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:86-92 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:87-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:85-91 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:115-121 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:87-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:88-94 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:90-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:93-99 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:90-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:88-94 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:80` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:77` calls `requireActivity` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:65` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 25) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 25) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:81 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:81-88 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:69-76 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:75-82 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt:120-127 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:69-76 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:87-94 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:96-103 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:77-84 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt:109-116 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:93-100 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:89-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:91-98 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:124-131 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:88-95 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:89-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:87-94 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:88-95 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:86-93 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:116-123 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:88-95 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:89-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:91-98 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:94-101 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:91-98 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:89-96 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:81` 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 before the matched lines, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:77` calls `requireActivity` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:65` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 15) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 15) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:194 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:194-202 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:168-176 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:184-192 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:296-304 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:164-172 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:172-180 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:145-153 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:165-173 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:141-148 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:162-169 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:169-176 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:144-151 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:183-190 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:202-209 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:164-171 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:194` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 9) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 9) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:224 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:224-231 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:290-297 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt:393-400 | REDACTED:102-109 | REDACTED:201-208 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/SmsQueryFragment.kt:212-219 | REDACTED:120-127 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:156-163 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/ActionWorker.kt:422-429 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CloneFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 107 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/CallQueryFragment.kt:224` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (1–8 lines × 13) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (1–8 lines × 13) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:82 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:82-89 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:145-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:103-103 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:104-108 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/CronWorker.kt:88-88 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:106-106 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:107-112 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:169-169 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt:170-175 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:145-145 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:146-150 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SimWorker.kt:86-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SimWorker.kt:87-91 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/LocationWorker.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BatteryWorker.kt:82` 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 `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. Note 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:104` calls `setInputData`, `build` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/BluetoothWorker.kt:103` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:85 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/FrpcRecyclerAdapter.kt:85-92 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/RuleRecyclerAdapter.kt:89-96 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/SenderRecyclerAdapter.kt:79-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskRecyclerAdapter.kt:79-86 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/adapter/TaskSettingAdapter.kt:79-86 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 3) REDACTED:49 — REDACTED:49-55 | REDACTED:50-56 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:56-63 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 12 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 152 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 `REDACTED:49` 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, `REDACTED:46` calls `SuppressLint` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/client/WolSendFragment.kt:49` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:153 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:153-160 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:167-174 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:162-169 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 165 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:153` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–8 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (4–8 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:140 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:140-147 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:131-134 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:145-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:139-142 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 139 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:140` 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. 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:131` calls `check`, `getProxyTypeCheckId` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:145` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 27) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 27) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:365 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:365-371 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:439-445 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:468-474 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:497-503 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:522-528 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:549-555 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:312-318 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:364-370 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:417-423 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:544-550 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:618-624 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:739-745 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:197-203 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:239-245 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:295-301 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:244-250 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:272-278 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:300-306 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:324-330 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:149-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:178-184 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:211-217 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:262-268 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:313-319 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:222-228 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:589-595 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:92-98 — there are 27 copies across 9 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 27 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:365` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:416` calls `permission`, `getReadContactsPermission` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:496` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 26) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 26) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/AppListFragment.kt:130 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/AppListFragment.kt:130-136 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:365-371 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:439-445 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:468-474 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:497-503 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:522-528 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:549-555 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:312-318 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:364-370 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:417-423 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:544-550 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:618-624 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:739-745 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:197-203 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:244-250 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:272-278 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:300-306 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt:324-330 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SendSmsFragment.kt:149-155 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:178-184 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:211-217 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:262-268 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SettingsFragment.kt:313-319 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/BluetoothFragment.kt:222-228 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:589-595 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:92-98 — there are 26 copies across 10 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 26 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/AppListFragment.kt:130` 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, `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:416` calls `permission`, `getReadContactsPermission` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:496` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 16) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 16) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:197 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:197-203 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt:171-177 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:187-193 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:299-305 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:167-173 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuFragment.kt:175-181 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:148-154 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/PushplusFragment.kt:168-174 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:143-149 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SmsFragment.kt:179-185 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/SocketFragment.kt:164-170 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:171-177 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:146-152 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:185-191 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:204-210 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkRobotFragment.kt:166-172 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkGroupRobotFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:197` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:571 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:571-577 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:173-180 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt:167-173 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt` 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. 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/TasksEditFragment.kt:571` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:159 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:159-164 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:153-158 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:167-172 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:162-167 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 139 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:159` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:441 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:441-445 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:449-453 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:457-461 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:465-469 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:473-477 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:481-485 — 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt:441` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 4) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:150 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:150-154 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt:144-148 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt:161-163 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt:156-158 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 139 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 `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt: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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:88 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt:88-92 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt:123-127 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/ResendFragment.kt:95-99 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/RuleFragment.kt:128-132 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt:129-133 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/TaskActionFragment.kt:129-133 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt:114-118 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/CleanerFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/FrpcFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:185 — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt:185-190 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt:155-160 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/GotifyFragment.kt:136-141 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/ServerchanFragment.kt:132-137 | app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/UrlSchemeFragment.kt:135-140 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/BarkFragment.kt` and `app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/FeishuAppFragment.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 104 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.
P2 · Observability · No structured logging · ×1
  • No structured logging — No logging call was found in the 339 JVM production file(s) this check read across 1 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (JVM: SLF4J, Log4j2, java.util.logging, Logback, kotlin-logging, scala-logging) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×1
  • Outbound HTTP without resilience app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/NetworkWorker.kt:163 — `.openConnection(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
X1 · Async correctness · `GlobalScope.async` result is not kept · ×1
  • `GlobalScope.async` result is not kept app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/service/ForegroundService.kt:279 — The `Deferred` this starts is not kept anywhere, and `GlobalScope` has no parent job: `async` holds any exception its block throws until somebody calls `await`, so once nobody holds the `Deferred` the error is gone — not rethrown, not printed, not passed to a `CoroutineExceptionHandler` — and nothing can wait for the work to finish either. Start the work in a structured scope the caller owns (`coroutineScope { async { … } }`, or a scope tied to the component's lifetime) and `await` it, or, for genuine fire-and-forget, use `launch` — whose failure reaches the uncaught-exception handler — or catch and report inside the block itself.
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Disposable created and abandoned in the function that made it · ×1
  • Disposable created and abandoned in the function that made it app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt:650 — `FileInputStream(…)` opens something that has to be given back — a file descriptor, a socket, a directory handle — and it is held in `pfxInputStream`, and every later use of `pfxInputStream` in its block reads a member through it — it is never returned, passed, stored, captured by a lambda, reassigned or released, so this expression both creates the value and is the last place that can release it, and does not. Every call leaks one more open handle until the collector happens to reach it: `Too many open files` under load, and on Windows a file that cannot be replaced or deleted while it is held. Open it with `FileInputStream(…).use { r -> … }`, which releases it on every path including a throw, or hold it and call `.close()` in a `finally`.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×1
  • Swallowed exception (empty catch) app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/SocketUtils.kt:283 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Minor — 41 finding(s)
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×23
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:494 — `!SettingUtils.enableLoadUserAppList && !SettingUtils.enableLoadSystemAppList` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:43 — `!TextUtils.isEmpty(accessToken) && expiresIn > System.currentTimeMillis()` appears character-identically in 3 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/FeishuAppUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:59 — `(setting.proxyType == Proxy.Type.HTTP || setting.proxyType == Proxy.Type.SOCKS) && !TextUtils.isEmpty(setting.proxyHost) && !TextUtils.isEmp…` appears character-identically in 4 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/activity/MainActivity.kt:306 — `App.UserAppList.isEmpty() && App.SystemAppList.isEmpty()` appears character-identically in 3 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/activity/MainActivity.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:644 — `FILED_TRANSPOND_ALL != filed && TextUtils.isEmpty(value)` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt:83 — `SettingUtils.subidSim1 > 0 || SettingUtils.subidSim2 > 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/receiver/SmsReceiver.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/PhoneUtils.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:437 — `TextUtils.isEmpty(targetUrl) || targetUrl.startsWith("file://")` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:565 — `checkId == R.id.rb_is || checkId == R.id.rb_contain || checkId == R.id.rb_not_contain` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:155 — `checkedId == R.id.rb_proxyHttp || checkedId == R.id.rb_proxySocks` appears character-identically in 4 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt:391 — `directory.exists() && directory.isDirectory` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/AlarmFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/EmailFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt:269 — `isChecked && !SettingUtils.enableLocation` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/ServerFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/HttpServerFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:225 — `latitude.isNaN() || longitude.isNaN() || distance.isNaN()` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt:183 — `location.latitude == 0.0 || location.longitude == 0.0` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/LeaveAddressFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/ToAddressFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/BaseWebViewFragment.kt:35 — `mAgentWeb != null && mAgentWeb!!.handleKeyEvent(keyCode, event)` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/BaseWebViewFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:269 — `proxyAuthenticator && TextUtils.isEmpty(proxyUsername) && TextUtils.isEmpty(proxyPassword)` appears character-identically in 4 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt:262 — `proxyType != Proxy.Type.DIRECT && (TextUtils.isEmpty(proxyHost) || TextUtils.isEmpty(proxyPort))` appears character-identically in 4 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/DingtalkInnerRobotFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/TelegramFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WebhookFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/senders/WeworkAgentFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:239 — `ruleType == "app" && appListSpinnerList.isNotEmpty()` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:571 — `ruleType == "call" && rule.filed == FILED_CALL_TYPE` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/MsgFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt:617 — `senderListSelected.isEmpty() || senderId == 0L` appears character-identically in 3 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/NotificationFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/SenderFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt:68 — `setting.proxyAuthenticator && (!TextUtils.isEmpty(setting.proxyUsername) || !TextUtils.isEmpty(setting.proxyPassword))` appears character-identically in 4 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/DingtalkInnerRobotUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/TelegramUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WebhookUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/sender/WeworkAgentUtils.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt:103 — `timestampPrev != timestamp && timestamp - timestampPrev <= duplicateMessagesLimits` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/SmsCommandUtils.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/workers/SendWorker.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt:387 — `url.startsWith("intent://") && url.contains("com.youku.phone")` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/AgentWebFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/XPageWebViewFragment.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt:281 — `value.contains("&&") || value.contains("||")` appears character-identically in 2 files — app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/database/entity/Rule.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/RuleLine.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×2
  • Orphaned file app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt: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 app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/ProximitySensorScreenHelper.kt: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.
X9 · Subsumed condition operand · Subsumed condition operand · ×2
  • Subsumed condition operand app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/WebViewInterceptDialog.kt:65 — `url.startsWith( "https" )` can never decide this `||` — every value satisfying `url.startsWith( "https" )` also satisfies `url.startsWith("http")`, so the `||` chain is already decided by the latter. The expression is equivalent to the chain without it, which means it is wider than it reads. Delete the dead operand, or narrow the surviving one if IT is the accident.
  • Subsumed condition operand app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/core/webview/MiddlewareWebViewClient.kt:103 — `url.startsWith("https")` can never decide this `||` — every value satisfying `url.startsWith("https")` also satisfies `url.startsWith("http")`, so the `||` chain is already decided by the latter. The expression is equivalent to the chain without it, which means it is wider than it reads. Delete the dead operand, or narrow the surviving one if IT is the accident.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `app` (42052 LoC, 450 module-visible types across 44 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 2 of 184 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 184 of the 345 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/action/WolFragment.kt, app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/utils/ProximitySensorScreenHelper.kt. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1
  • No tests found — No test suite could be collected — no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (JUnit (with Kotest or MockK on Kotlin)) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
  • No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 9566 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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1
  • No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
X5 · Nullable reference types · Not-null assertions (`!!`) reduce the null safety score · ×1
  • Not-null assertions (`!!`) reduce the null safety score — ~54.5 `!!` not-null assertions per 1k Kotlin product lines — 2587 across the 47474 line(s) of the 339 Kotlin file(s) read (generated, test and sample code not counted). Densest: app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/condition/CronFragment.kt (391), app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/RulesEditFragment.kt (120), app/src/main/kotlin/cn/ppps/forwarder/fragment/SettingsFragment.kt (95). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null and becomes a `NullPointerException` the first time the author is wrong.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-2c7cd43eb9f541d990bb21dc1c9294a2/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .5artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-2c7cd43eb9f541d990bb21dc1c9294a2/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .30artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)—none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/gdpr.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .4artifacts/raw/semgrep-gdpr.json
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesnone (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)—none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a1662c-9f75-71ae-a0b0-7cf6a500b234 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 26 · Warnings: 434 · Recommendations: 41 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 00:32 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

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