{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D3","name":"God Classes","shortDescription":{"text":"God Classes"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D3"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D5","name":"Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D5"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D8","name":"Code Coverage","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Coverage"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D8"},{"id":"D9","name":"Test Distribution","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Distribution"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D9"},{"id":"D10","name":"Test Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D10"},{"id":"D11","name":"Test Reliability","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Reliability"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D11"},{"id":"D12","name":"Dependency Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D12"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D14","name":"License Compliance","shortDescription":{"text":"License Compliance"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D14"},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D17","name":"Explicit Debt","shortDescription":{"text":"Explicit Debt"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D17"},{"id":"D20","name":"ADR Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"ADR Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D20"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"]}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AX3","name":"Project dependency cycles","shortDescription":{"text":"Project dependency cycles"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX3"},{"id":"AX4","name":"Dependency direction","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency direction"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX4"},{"id":"AX8","name":"Test isolation","shortDescription":{"text":"Test isolation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX8"},{"id":"AX9","name":"CQS / query purity","shortDescription":{"text":"CQS / query purity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX9"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P2","name":"Observability","shortDescription":{"text":"Observability"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P2"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"X10","name":"Duplicated predicate","shortDescription":{"text":"Duplicated predicate"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X10"},{"id":"X32","name":"Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly","shortDescription":{"text":"Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X32"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TasksView.taskviewtoolbarcontent (cyclomatic 30): TasksView.taskviewtoolbarcontent has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/TasksView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cbdfea6f684ffcebe3fa1507f983e1beccc4404a3862d055c2daab849b13f81f"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"QuicktaskFormView.body (cyclomatic 23): QuicktaskFormView.body 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2be1cdbb8490e4d49592f6dde7f886512f84b4ff85ccf0d0fa4507b633b325ac"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"RestoreTableView.restoretoolbarcontent (cyclomatic 20): RestoreTableView.restoretoolbarcontent 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":76}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9073eee97955f41b91e3475e8da18ceda0e6a5a91a59d97085054333f3b63139"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"LogStatsChartView.body (cyclomatic 20): LogStatsChartView.body 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/LogStatsChartView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":54}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"601191af78dde54c7f7a2607683cdc5c98fe9822f30649848f1ba72baafab5c4"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SynchronizeConfiguration.== (cyclomatic 17): SynchronizeConfiguration.== 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/SynchronizeConfiguration.swift"},"region":{"startLine":131}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1fd47caf0c5c51b761ce861fb7ea0ab9fe0954c1bfe4f467623bb1434fe1b181"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"VerifyTaskTabView.body (cyclomatic 16): VerifyTaskTabView.body 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/VerifyTask/VerifyTaskTabView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":38}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dd4bbbb5aa34f5407a0a807cbb300f9fc4aeea00d68510d474e22f95c0db30c4"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TasksView.taskviewtoolbarcontent (cognitive 44): TasksView.taskviewtoolbarcontent has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27 (39 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/TasksView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"da5aed589e29c4bcbe22b55d29143ebe0623f518ab755629ce1301051a7f78e8"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"QuicktaskFormView.body (cognitive 37): QuicktaskFormView.body has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (34 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"86155a46a191fe29e90f49942d24244ff72079e8e12703ce2300ab0a5f093d2a"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Execute.startexecution (cognitive 36): Execute.startexecution has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (25 pts), error handling 2 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 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\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":75}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5919366a42e17603dc50c8a87f60c750854e241ff2e2c2466e9f9f0da5e954d0"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Execute.startexecution_noestimate (cognitive 35): Execute.startexecution_noestimate has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (24 pts), error handling 2 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 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\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":135}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3a94b95d5d6b755af208dbc350983e2e85da3af0bc60db3bcadfe6249743cadf"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"LogStatsChartView.body (cognitive 32): LogStatsChartView.body has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (12 pts), if/else 10, boolean chains 6, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/LogStatsChartView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":54}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"231de1c3868d5a4918129447eefb9e31813cb9b59c4a75ee78c2d093a4c0ed57"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ObservableParametersRsync.updatersyncparameters (cognitive 28): ObservableParametersRsync.updatersyncparameters has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (28 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableParametersRsync.swift"},"region":{"startLine":96}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"01cfb485cedde08788c54ae296a3b6d8916c2d87fe2bc6bb72bb8eef096162ed"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"VerifyTaskTabView.body (cognitive 28): VerifyTaskTabView.body has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (25 pts), boolean chains 3 (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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/VerifyTask/VerifyTaskTabView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":38}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"473e829fd0d3c7735eeaf795fb50f78f5e37d65512f9471c9a59de57d10311fd"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TagSnapshots.keepallorlastdayinperiod (cognitive 27): TagSnapshots.keepallorlastdayinperiod has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (23 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 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\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/TagSnapshots.swift"},"region":{"startLine":80}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b7982cd72ff3019cc52345d723d15850b614b5493961a5ac83352ed2587f2f46"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"RestoreTableView.restoretoolbarcontent (cognitive 24): RestoreTableView.restoretoolbarcontent has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 8 (11 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":76}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d6a04afcea336acc98945b6249060962b01c6b314edad28d67386c274f2e77d5"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Execute.processTermination_noestimation (cognitive 22): Execute.processTermination_noestimation has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":336}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2d814e11b2d3022761483d91fa4ecbf6e5ee135fed3736320043dffc97647bf1"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"UserConfiguration.init (cognitive 22): UserConfiguration.init has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/UserConfiguration.swift"},"region":{"startLine":80}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"63f23e109cc7fb7b852d3c3f0f08c380b024d1af1a19a1098dbf4da5205d57f8"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ObservableRestore.computerestorearguments (cognitive 21): ObservableRestore.computerestorearguments has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth \u2014 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\u0027s 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableRestore.swift"},"region":{"startLine":188}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7c431c281a23483e1a92ee8d4fd4c44c1d48984b3feda201738335904ddd181f"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"GetfullpathforRsync.rsyncpath (cognitive 19): GetfullpathforRsync.rsyncpath has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), boolean chains 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/GetfullpathforRsync.swift"},"region":{"startLine":11}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"21c5835076b51f44dc094db048b8923bea9bc34a8c5a26aa89b132f63f6f173a"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ValidateArguments.validate (cognitive 19): ValidateArguments.validate has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), match/switch 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ValidateArguments.swift"},"region":{"startLine":40}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"efdff01a9f77f48c4ced84238625a812b2c9bdc17e242b9bacba458f1ad55925"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"DetailsView.body (cognitive 19): DetailsView.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (10 pts), if/else 7 (9 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/OutputViews/DetailsView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a022ce389cb6cc6f26ff56eb5f0e473ac75b16088931f7f61a3c5016df37f34d"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ObservableParametersRsync.setbackup (cognitive 17): ObservableParametersRsync.setbackup has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableParametersRsync.swift"},"region":{"startLine":65}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"61e824d89b94e9aaa9e41de7fb94ef1c0b031d8cad84d9698ec9936d4f8ffef7"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ItemizedOutputRecord.init (cognitive 17): ItemizedOutputRecord.init has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Output/ItemizedOutput.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"67b94a5f8ebfbe92a57ce49bfc814831133284999689f7114dafa43a74b904e5"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ConfigurationsTableDataMainView.body (cognitive 17): ConfigurationsTableDataMainView.body has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, boolean chains 4, ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataMainView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"914ea02f8d7907dad19503a055e107f4a380b113b208408863b86aa5feb6842b"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ConfigurationsTableDataMainView.synchronizeIDText (cognitive 17): ConfigurationsTableDataMainView.synchronizeIDText has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 4 (11 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataMainView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":128}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"421dda1c6a66414f61b4ca3ac8bdb7d861d6a982396bee6304da77a861709e5a"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Execute.processTermination (cognitive 17): Execute.processTermination has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), ternaries 2 (5 pts), error handling 2 (4 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":277}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ae3463d2c65cd321a4ee1b947c9ef31fbd7ec01f405595c86ba29ef46f862ca9"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"RemoteDataNumbers.init (cognitive 17): RemoteDataNumbers.init has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (2 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/RemoteDataNumbers.swift"},"region":{"startLine":78}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"77763b80bdb5c169019184eaa042365d87a6eb7b50acbdefe999351680217889"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TagSnapshots.markfordelete (cognitive 16): TagSnapshots.markfordelete has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/TagSnapshots.swift"},"region":{"startLine":13}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6c7a0d1c0d4bac0777eb1d6b7824b3198434339897b36a87003b05a5e7fe15b7"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SynchronizeConfiguration.== (cognitive 16): SynchronizeConfiguration.== has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 16. 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/SynchronizeConfiguration.swift"},"region":{"startLine":131}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3386b2eab5b4a105b46c75ea32cdf29afa51952cd9e8ff019a34d732852b0263"}},{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"MethodTooLong: QuicktaskFormView.body: MethodTooLong \u2014 body runs 150 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 50 over it, 1.50\u00D7 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 \u2014 the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name \u2014 into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dfb33f06882af3a1ea65bb202c5c0d79f4ab444bc6549b16bf446200e0b22053"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Edited copy of a member (14 corresponding lines): RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:55-72 | RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift:126-146 \u2014 These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 14 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below \u2014 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\u0027 grain \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift"},"region":{"startLine":55}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"42f5c19cf303e96fb2d5f86973511a22dce8e7fc0d25ed927bc3740b6254a133"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:91-117 | RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:119-145 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:95-121 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:123-149 \u2014 These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":91}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"041a08eabb9c2d482996de72ae5ef745edafd0976315afd7d6a11a3f00809c17"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (28 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataView.swift:17-44 | RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableLoadDataView.swift:18-45 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":17}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0f6f4197c42d86c5d1c58764f6118c1869ce1c6b52503a12aeaf4f04df150857"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (24 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/TableofNotExeSchedules.swift:15-38 | RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/TableofSchedules.swift:15-38 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/TableofNotExeSchedules.swift:15\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/TableofNotExeSchedules.swift"},"region":{"startLine":15}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f1ed7f8c0dd16a460e1811dbd8f8473cca5a46f97001f2afc121042997bd9746"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (21 lines \u00D7 3): RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:77-97 | RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:108-128 | RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:141-161 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:77\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift"},"region":{"startLine":77}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f6a50135d96913ed8f323d4d3311de9d1e214d81304150774757d70465b9faf1"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (19 lines \u00D7 3): RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableParametersRsync.swift:172-190 | RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableSSH.swift:23-41 | RsyncUI/Model/Ssh/SshKeys.swift:68-86 \u2014 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 \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableParametersRsync.swift"},"region":{"startLine":172}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fb9b70295f505de2762233e4899c597a49b33af57cc81cb180d012d44207af24"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17\u201318 lines \u00D7 3): RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataView.swift:37-54 | RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableLoadDataView.swift:38-55 | RsyncUI/Views/Detailsview/EstimateTableView.swift:44-60 \u2014 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 \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataView.swift:37\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ConfigurationsTableDataView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":37}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b272ff04ecd13429d06d07ff63a3e058c8563098605ff6bfe960cfa5eebd47ea"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 4): RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:101-117 | RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:129-145 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:105-121 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:133-149 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:101\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":101}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5cb12390ef7f92b5fb28010eaff46f7be110f4ccf02a41c15c1f4cd4f4f6ae92"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (17 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarDayView.swift:43-59 | RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarDayView.swift:89-105 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarDayView.swift:43\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarDayView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":43}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f971533fc7c49992058b52d329cca5c3354c85a6f294692991bd84c5935bd32c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (16 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:30-45 | RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift:31-46 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:30\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift"},"region":{"startLine":30}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"547ae999d47559d4bee54cc182b25c0e64ca11def6dd5be9e06ba92cc9068645"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:103-117 | RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:188-202 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:103\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":103}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6077f6c2afbda5a2363b78013fcbdad60b0e0a1bd1dc3324a76759efac6882f6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:135-149 | RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:156-170 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:135\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":135}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"69f1d731128fddfe1ed97ab1ccb080610422667c61fcddfcd51de5ceaf2b9b24"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift:37-50 | RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift:68-81 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift:37\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift"},"region":{"startLine":37}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"01a6fac2aace81ec76e6c290df22c2f6ff0889ff1042dad3533de1516bd8006c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (14 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:152-165 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:156-169 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":152}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4ed4d7204c7931c7614a38e83c90c0b9a2a307a4bcb5ad503adc3bb3738b45c6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13\u201314 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/extensionTasksView.swift:48-60 | RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/extensionTasksView.swift:70-83 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/extensionTasksView.swift:48\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/extensionTasksView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":48}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0a89b9bd24d1f7c5a1e9039d0cbc5acac09294e99456f0348f7991f9c468a091"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:108-120 | RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:153-165 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":108}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7026dbb6ac9f3eacb62f2f2e47a43c29c0a76f0dda2b689cf2e36421f6786fdf"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Estimate.swift:107-118 | RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:188-199 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Estimate.swift"},"region":{"startLine":107}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c5ef677232e09f225e8ab68a053e9f2854dce7421c151e3b041a4e8bf6cc1a4e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/Params.swift:31-42 | RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/SSHParams.swift:21-32 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/Params.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"99144b9b16212f54b5a892f6bb495343d937b7a7d313c3141d6a0331d977cf1f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201312 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyConfiguration.swift:42-53 | RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyObservableAddConfiguration.swift:38-48 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyObservableAddConfiguration.swift:38\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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 \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyConfiguration.swift"},"region":{"startLine":42}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d2c437198f07804dea1d2cf145a7adcffeeda0637e89c3dbdd91c02fb7e30c5f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11\u201312 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Detailsview/OneTaskDetailsView.swift:66-77 | RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/VerifyTask/VerifyTaskTabView.swift:125-135 \u2014 the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach \u2014 a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none \u2014 and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The \u0060return\u0060 at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body\u0027s own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that \u0060return\u0060 occupied \u2014 no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Detailsview/OneTaskDetailsView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":66}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b9b821723120927d6fc8f2dc41737b38f1976989d99a7f608c94af836f046f42"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:308-318 | RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:363-373 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:308\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a \u0060defer\u0060-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead \u2014 before the caller uses what it releases \u2014 so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:374\u0060 calls \u0060executeAllTasksNoEstimationComplete\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:320\u0060 does not \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":308}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2cc3a6cc0c8859b77a7c36f62aad4d19ecdcc3e3388d075abaf6d1aa5067a95e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:119-129 | RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:172-182 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift:119\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":119}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ae006811f567180e30fce4ad2bb14d63302026b102640267faf90314eec38b70"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyConfiguration.swift:83-91 | RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyObservableAddConfiguration.swift:67-75 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/VerifyConfiguration.swift"},"region":{"startLine":83}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"77f647b7d996b231ab32ac8cb1fbb36e69a3938ccd43ca304fbc22c1bfb9ed86"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:130-138 | RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:163-171 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift:130\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/OtherRsyncCommandtoDisplay.swift"},"region":{"startLine":130}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"397834ccfde0d36244fbb8e6542b2dde382d597356cb04bcaf3656e1da3df1ff"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/Add/extensionAddTaskView\u002BFormFields.swift:49-57 | RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/Add/extensionAddTaskView\u002BFormFields.swift:79-87 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/Add/extensionAddTaskView\u002BFormFields.swift:49\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/Add/extensionAddTaskView\u002BFormFields.swift"},"region":{"startLine":49}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2ccbac671eff8e58d93856a83c1901eb4baeab6f5280c9a3be5c5530ba3632fd"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:91-99 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:95-103 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:91\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":91}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"70b46dd52235df161db05268c809ca77dd8291652927a61626e0601d631d5aff"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:119-127 | RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift:123-131 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift:119\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/InspectorViews/RsyncParameters/extensionRsyncParametersView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":119}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"33618402cf96fe468643db1b08088ff12bbb27f369f9160dec2bee5b6d827b06"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:76-83 | RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:136-143 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:76\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":76}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"91d44a8da83f566ce3ec07e0bd2ce6df0c5ffdf9dede70311044db15439eb5dc"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/ArgumentsSynchronize.swift:34-41 | RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/ArgumentsVerify.swift:14-21 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/ArgumentsSynchronize.swift:34\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/ParametersRsync/ArgumentsSynchronize.swift"},"region":{"startLine":34}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"884cf4644349c178523f15d2ef54e50d514c0f6e49814c9f8a3a35ea7393e704"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteLogRecordsJSON.swift:14-21 | RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteSynchronizeConfigurationJSON.swift:14-21 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteLogRecordsJSON.swift:14\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteLogRecordsJSON.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a4b7c4462d457030dde3ab0ce754163c1e409d8cad8f808bde0a87dee81a73a2"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/TagSnapshots.swift:90-96 | RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/TagSnapshots.swift:101-107 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/TagSnapshots.swift:90\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/TagSnapshots.swift"},"region":{"startLine":90}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"293269f55323883f8aee9e533a5a629e451a487eff1f3dc8f5869b1f3069cc7c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:55-60 | RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift:126-131 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:55\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift"},"region":{"startLine":55}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1288f373c9de66cc7fde1e07a28df37c503d1779849b409bcc3a206978dba319"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift:18-23 | RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift:57-62 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift:18\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/ReadAllTasks.swift"},"region":{"startLine":18}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ef5306adc461ff5f3c29b6340b95a4a1b8797270c7e31ad4b54b24b586ad7b91"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Loggdata/LogChartService.swift:137-141 | RsyncUI/Model/Loggdata/Logging.swift:112-116 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Loggdata/LogChartService.swift:137\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Loggdata/LogChartService.swift"},"region":{"startLine":137}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7c720da74473b66451768921699718ab0a6f69a1eed7e5cab9d6f470d257d17f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:64-68 | RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift:135-139 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 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 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:64\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift:140\u0060 calls \u0060mergeremotecatalogsandlogs\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift:70\u0060 does not \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift"},"region":{"startLine":64}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f4ca205deabbed4f6f14c7d5e136cdee3c1393cc377ccb5e8f1e4a0daf280fe3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Estimate.swift:43-48 | RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift:37-42 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Estimate.swift"},"region":{"startLine":43}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a1cbe464a4cb968120c3501c84e3f3b41e3453c4ed23004502cecbfb37c8305e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 2): RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ListofTasksAddView.swift:58-69 | RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ListofTasksMainView.swift:88-99 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ListofTasksAddView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":58}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cdf6da2eed9c753783f2aa043863007d36ba25be2b2706f45920cc69a3ccd7cc"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: Date (LCOM4 10): Date\u0027s methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Utils/extensions.swift"},"region":{"startLine":28}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"98be9ca055090dfa46426b366924120a5ffceaf3dc5c2e221ad5fe043c43f2be"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: ObservableRsyncPathSetting (LCOM4 4): ObservableRsyncPathSetting\u0027s 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 \u2014 your repository\u0027s 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 \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableRsyncPathSetting.swift"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dca2c4ff64b5c36528b9ce84e678aac7d07c3a3d0082d20c0b43e55944e53b27"}},{"ruleId":"D9","level":"note","message":{"text":"Inverted test pyramid: Most tests are end-to-end, which tends to be brittle and slow."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3fc0c6fc621cd18b83a2d2c03ea6976b61fb4769f62dc21043f0af4cad912d10"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift: RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in RestoreTableView.restoretoolbarcontent at line 76. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons \u2014 this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-03..2026-10-01, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-07-03 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-10-01 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift\u0060: 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 \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":76}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e25ad6e73fc84d039d42083621001f2d3f9484a2c0952e1e17372066ac90317"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift: RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in QuicktaskFormView.body at line 19. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 2 changed it for other reasons \u2014 this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-03..2026-10-01, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-07-03 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-10-01 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift\u0060: 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 \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/QuicktaskFormView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3931d09f245a5cd42e7ff463ce0378fcbf9331bea48c12286047e93f3ec245e1"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift: RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Execute.startexecution at line 75. 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 2026-07-03..2026-10-01, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-07-03 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-10-01 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift\u0060: 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 \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift"},"region":{"startLine":75}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"200b2a50bca2921df92c42d209afa99a39d70c25fbe8afd70ab56fc690cf06ec"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: RsyncUI/Views/Sidebar/SidebarMainView.swift: RsyncUI/Views/Sidebar/SidebarMainView.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 12 (its worst body is SidebarMainView.body at line 53), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Ccold start URL fix\u201D; \u201Cfixed focus state\u201D; \u201Cfix crash\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-03..2026-10-01, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-07-03 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-10-01 06:37:58 \u002B02:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- RsyncUI/Views/Sidebar/SidebarMainView.swift\u0060: 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 \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Sidebar/SidebarMainView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":53}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b5145cc782d7f6da2405e1acc1e3c2ef28b93322b0b77e778f84f05d7ced7cb6"}},{"ruleId":"D20","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs found: No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (\u0060docs/adr/\u0060, \u0060docs/decisions/\u0060, \u0060adr/\u0060, \u0060docs/rfcs/\u0060, an \u0060ADR0001/\u0060 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 (\u0060docs/adr/use-postgres.md\u0060, \u0060docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md\u0060); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (\u00600001-use-postgres.md\u0060, \u0060adr-012-caching.md\u0060); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an \u0022Architecture Decision Record\u0022 heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these \u2014 unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings \u2014 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 \u0060docs/adr/\u0060."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d2bea044ff79d7d275f5a91a6e2f548586178eaf480274c33960ad020c854631"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: RestoreFilesTableView.swift \u2194 RestoreTableView.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreFilesTableView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift\u0060 change together 82% of the time (18 of the 22 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 18 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060f23cecf9\u0060 restore; \u0060774ac43f\u0060 Update restore table views to improve file count display; \u0060f4eddd8c\u0060 Update \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreFilesTableView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d44fc87f58fff204c4663193a3aaeae3bc05969f387c6de006dec01e18d841c6"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: InterruptProcess.swift \u2194 SshKeys.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Process/InterruptProcess.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Ssh/SshKeys.swift\u0060 change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 11 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00608e620d8b\u0060 updates; \u00600526acf3\u0060 Refactor ActorLogToFile usage to method calls; \u0060836e3b62\u0060 Refactor ActorLogToFile initialization and add logger closures \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Process/InterruptProcess.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"98d62ad122cf3cd380d3a9a559c9f670b0766eb019402b9330b75b052fc674b7"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: CalendarDayView.swift \u2192 ObservableSchedules.swift, AddSchedule.swift, CalendarMonthView.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarDayView.swift\u0060 changes together with 3 other files \u2014 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableSchedules.swift\u0060, \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/AddSchedule.swift\u0060, \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarMonthView.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 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 3."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/CalendarDayView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3a01e6069a85df154edcb938ae0797133ddfc52b4937f525ffdfbde3e5690b8b"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: TrimOutputForRestore.swift \u2194 TrimOutputFromRsync.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Output/TrimOutputForRestore.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Output/TrimOutputFromRsync.swift\u0060 change together 71% of the time (10 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u006021fd3b6f\u0060 update; \u00602d59c8ae\u0060 update; \u00601b49325f\u0060 update \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Output/TrimOutputForRestore.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"484b5e87bb929d6243fbc484686197b1f203b288e86b78ec745d23739d87fe51"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: WriteLogRecordsJSON.swift \u2194 WriteSynchronizeConfigurationJSON.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteLogRecordsJSON.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteSynchronizeConfigurationJSON.swift\u0060 change together 70% of the time (58 of the 83 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 58 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060e7830374\u0060 Updates; \u0060d35aac7f\u0060 Concurrency logfile; \u006084e7a97a\u0060 Refactor logging \u0026 JSON persist; bump version \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteLogRecordsJSON.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"21209662820ae514086daf8d5e3615205d2fbfecdedaa4c3662093825d895e48"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: SnapshotListView.swift \u2194 SnapshotsView.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Snapshots/SnapshotListView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Snapshots/SnapshotsView.swift\u0060 change together 70% of the time (32 of the 46 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 32 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u006046315c23\u0060 Improve UI copy and wording across views; \u0060863a5035\u0060 Use .foregroundStyle and add debounce cancellation; \u00609f942c6c\u0060 Replace inflect syntax with explicit pluralization \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Snapshots/SnapshotListView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2f253b105c4003f1d7ecb8b8f5aa575f24971b8ad74341db4c6e7199a15e4b1b"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: CatalogForProfile.swift \u2194 Backupconfigfiles.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/FilesAndCatalogs/CatalogForProfile.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Utils/Backupconfigfiles.swift\u0060 change together 67% of the time (12 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060ce0e8069\u0060 Refactor FileManager variable naming for consistency; \u0060f5217ab5\u0060 Refactor error variable naming in catch blocks; \u0060295aa27f\u0060 update \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/FilesAndCatalogs/CatalogForProfile.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"62b36c2d0790971ce290975056e28f9f562597fd83c3641cf5871b95c88fa70a"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: ObservableLogSettings.swift \u2194 UserConfiguration.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableLogSettings.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/UserConfiguration.swift\u0060 change together 62% of the time (13 of the 21 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 13 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060b284c3df\u0060 Add \u0027Use two tables Inspector\u0027 setting; \u006072124d3e\u0060 Add \u0027validate arguments\u0027 setting to user configuration; \u0060e16d317d\u0060 Add \u0027silence missing stats\u0027 user setting \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableLogSettings.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7cf7153756589a93bd2f9ab1f8a9cf073ad921c77be4bbec827f9699a1d0661b"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: SharedReference.swift \u2194 DecodeUserConfiguration.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/SharedReference.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/JSON/DecodeUserConfiguration.swift\u0060 change together 61% of the time (25 of the 41 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 25 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060868dab3d\u0060 Remove network monitoring feature and related code; \u0060a5357ec7\u0060 Remove \u0027Hide Schedule\u0027 option and related code; \u0060be3505da\u0060 Rename \u0027calendar\u0027 references to \u0027schedule\u0027 \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/SharedReference.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a72d6411d0392cf88333a6d0a2acbd68e6ef33b9f0db8434c3347bd4ea71ebf5"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change-coupling hub: SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift \u2192 ObservableRestore.swift, Rsyncversion.swift, Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift\u0060 changes together with 3 other files \u2014 \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableRestore.swift\u0060, \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Process/Rsyncversion.swift\u0060, \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift\u0060 \u2014 none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 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 3."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bbcb4d4ec6fee5c31fd7ba5059e46e21807884c7724267befa25e83843a314ec"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: ListofTasksAddView.swift \u2194 ListofTasksMainView.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ListofTasksAddView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ListofTasksMainView.swift\u0060 change together 60% of the time (15 of the 25 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 15 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00602af6568e\u0060 update Delete issues; \u00608e720a1c\u0060 initial commit; \u0060e7830374\u0060 Updates \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Configurations/ListofTasksAddView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"14cb5dc0a0f0fca28ce5650e30f46f5953f40596766926197a0845f9089b729c"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: ObservableSchedules.swift \u2194 TableofSchedules.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableSchedules.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/TableofSchedules.swift\u0060 change together 58% of the time (7 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060dc67669f\u0060 Refactor schedule deletion and table data source; \u0060c4ea6327\u0060 Refactor schedule data handling in timer and views; \u00607099fe69\u0060 Refactor schedule data to use GlobalTimer.allSchedules (at that commit the file was still \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableFutureSchedules.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableSchedules.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fef5bd769314e1e3fb87592dbd96c09edc37efdbdc5c3a3dfa991b666a6db047"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: AddSchedule.swift \u2194 TableofSchedules.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/AddSchedule.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/TableofSchedules.swift\u0060 change together 58% of the time (7 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00607099fe69\u0060 Refactor schedule data to use GlobalTimer.allSchedules; \u00603a910780\u0060 Move CalendarView files and update schedule clearing; \u0060a6fd13d4\u0060 update (at that commit the files were still \u0060RsyncUI/Views/CalendarView/AddSchedule.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/CalendarView/TableofSchedules.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/ScheduleView/AddSchedule.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"287fc2375020cc2c4d0c24bcbd38fb8d648701720f283b5498a17e794dadeb70"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: ExecuteEstTasksView.swift \u2194 ExecuteNoEstTasksView.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/ExecuteEstTasksView.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/ExecuteNoEstTasksView.swift\u0060 change together 58% of the time (67 of the 115 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 67 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00602435f174\u0060 Preserve process ownership and cancel remaining batch tasks; \u0060885c50bc\u0060 Record backup success only after a successful process exit; \u0060f30d22a6\u0060 updates \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Tasks/ExecuteEstTasksView.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"611340a688716bc0643b1eda6cea8e1b70db80d3541c4ac4a2302e9c7ebeaa56"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: ObservableLogSettings.swift \u2194 DecodeUserConfiguration.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableLogSettings.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/Basic/JSON/DecodeUserConfiguration.swift\u0060 change together 57% of the time (12 of the 21 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060b284c3df\u0060 Add \u0027Use two tables Inspector\u0027 setting; \u006072124d3e\u0060 Add \u0027validate arguments\u0027 setting to user configuration; \u0060e16d317d\u0060 Add \u0027silence missing stats\u0027 user setting \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Global/ObservableLogSettings.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f0921deff153500bdd991636f7e315a5bf66d08816c9dd3a5b46937016fe35b0"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: Environmentsettings.swift \u2194 RsyncandPathsettings.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Environmentsettings.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/RsyncandPathsettings.swift\u0060 change together 56% of the time (38 of the 68 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 38 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060dcdc3c6b\u0060 Auto-save user config in settings views; \u006066b3813e\u0060 Remove debug logging statements; \u0060ade61faf\u0060 Replace Button with ConditionalGlassButton in settings views \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Environmentsettings.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e480b2c139adbf7c12a2a74cd9c83bfb5680c736074a738f59de0394335bfef1"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: Environmentsettings.swift \u2194 Sshsettings.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Environmentsettings.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Sshsettings.swift\u0060 change together 53% of the time (36 of the 68 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 36 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060dcdc3c6b\u0060 Auto-save user config in settings views; \u006066b3813e\u0060 Remove debug logging statements; \u0060ade61faf\u0060 Replace Button with ConditionalGlassButton in settings views \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Settings/Environmentsettings.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4c0c41be3fbfed04b33201ffc46724d76ee5b3eadf5782cf9af146fbcab80306"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: Estimate.swift \u2194 Execute.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Estimate.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Execute.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (19 of the 38 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 19 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00602435f174\u0060 Preserve process ownership and cancel remaining batch tasks; \u0060885c50bc\u0060 Record backup success only after a successful process exit; \u00604c8c193a\u0060 ready for publish \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Execution/EstimateExecute/Estimate.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ba46c7694a5f53d69248a1ae845ac2cccc25db15a16dadbaf60ae807b83aafe6"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: WriteSynchronizeConfigurationJSON.swift \u2194 Backupconfigfiles.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteSynchronizeConfigurationJSON.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Model/Utils/Backupconfigfiles.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (9 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u0060f5217ab5\u0060 Refactor error variable naming in catch blocks; \u0060ea4fd363\u0060 update; \u0060295aa27f\u0060 update \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Storage/WriteSynchronizeConfigurationJSON.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1d4215bcde1d4d1f049f23cb9441c1996d8284cd1d3112478683bcea19122f3c"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: ObservableRsyncOutput.swift \u2194 RestoreTableView.swift: \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/ObservableRsyncOutput.swift\u0060 and \u0060RsyncUI/Views/Restore/RestoreTableView.swift\u0060 change together 50% of the time (7 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder \u2014 so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00606562659a\u0060 update; \u0060be10050a\u0060 update; \u00609b45ce77\u0060 update \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Views/Quicktask/ObservableRsyncOutput.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"49af194629cb30655db72c07795da9974db74ae39846f06d7c74929ec963eb1d"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 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."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No architecture diagram/doc: No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named \u0060architecture\u0060 or \u0060design\u0060 in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape \u2014 no \u0060## Architecture\u0060 heading, no \u0022architecture overview\u0022/\u0022high-level design\u0022 phrasing, no \u0022the architecture is \u2026\u0022 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 \u2014 not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c190e7c159d1850ee706c3ac4486e151e8a4fe169de4bf61436b9f399654f06"}},{"ruleId":"M3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No src/ separation: Production code isn\u0027t grouped under a src/ folder \u2014 it\u0027s spread across several top-level directories, so there\u0027s no one place that says \u0027this is the product\u0027."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fdf7f5b24e313364d10170a5c2542959902fe0d26ed70edef3eaa10ec5bcdb1d"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: README claims rsyncui uses DecodeEncodeGeneric as a Swift Package Manager dependency, but there is no such package in the repository \u2014 searched for: \u0060DecodeEncodeGeneric\u0060. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README\u0027s own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read \u2014 a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"343bbbd51ceb8de7a9ff88d79f7c797abf9b5921f8727b67b4d0f4f8a22c5e49"}},{"ruleId":"P1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"No CI pipeline: No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, \u2026) \u2014 changes aren\u0027t gated by an automated build/test."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"44f01af96e50474fba2df84d95ddf4f7e1d34c29c307830b9efc9057daa6b670"}},{"ruleId":"P3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No SAST: No static application security testing detected. For this repository\u0027s stack, add CodeQL\u0027s Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or \u0060semgrep --config=auto\u0060, which runs on any language) \u2014 this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen \u2014 if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54424179c892f03ef2fd003130ac4bd43f39bbf3b1ca0a0143e25acb80ec87"}},{"ruleId":"P6","level":"note","message":{"text":"No changelog: No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file \u2014 what shipped when isn\u0027t easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dda5aa5aed8cbb292c3ef2b733bc138f614293ae6426c85e98bf31ef330d9415"}},{"ruleId":"X10","level":"note","message":{"text":"Duplicated predicate: \u0060line.contains(\u0022done\u0022) == false \u0026\u0026 line.contains(\u0022receiving\u0022) == false \u0026\u0026 line.contains(\u0022sent\u0022) == false \u0026\u0026 line.contains(\u0022total\u0022) == false \u0026\u2026\u0060 appears character-identically in 2 files \u2014 RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift, RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/Snapshotlogsandcatalogs.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector\u0027s token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"RsyncUI/Model/Snapshots/SnapshotRemoteCatalogs.swift"},"region":{"startLine":60}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6b737335d5cd7e82681ec8874cae215095dd32116266b4cbabc5b332a7320081"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"OS Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"OS Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"SQL Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"SQL Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Code Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":0,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}}}]}