Public report of sculab/RASP, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 23:37 UTC · Survey ID cd_05a4ce8f623f4e0ba31a67af66f296ef
sculab/RASP
Measured 21 October 2026, 23:33 UTC, at code version e855dd6
Test distribution is not measured: No automated tests.
CAI scoreProvisionalDown 1 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 24,952 lines of product code in 1 project, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 17
Findings by how serious they are
62 critical488 serious9 minor
38 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 23:33 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The code didn't build, so the score is provisional
Watchdog couldn't build the code: the build stopped with 1 error. The dimensions that need a working build, such as complexity, duplication and dead code, were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, so their grades and the score are provisional. Fix the build errors and run the survey again for a final score. The first errors: BC31509: Unable to open resource file 'Codes/ICO.ico': Could not find file 'Codes/ICO.ico'.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
34of 37 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
544of 559 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 15 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
37dimensions across 5 lenses, read from 24,952 lines of product code in 1 project.
sculab/RASP scores 36 out of 100, but the score is provisional because the code didn't build, so the ratings below may change once it does.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 17 and is rated Critical. Its Code Coverage dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage and to resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 36 to about 54.
62 findings are critical: 36 in Secrets (history), 25 in Explicit Debt and one in Code Coverage.
Watchdog couldn't measure 36 dimensions in this code, among them IL Efficiency, Data Protection and Access Controls, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 24,952 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €22,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
If Production Readiness rose from 17 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 36 to about 54.
Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 100%
New since the last survey: 2 findings
These 2 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026.
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Config_Traits.vb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Form_Main.vb
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and is gone from this one.
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (18 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Config_Traits.vb
Rebuild cost: about €22,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€7,400 to €37,000, for 123 to 392 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.7 at a score of 36. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 24,952 lines of product code
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Raises the score by about 18 points · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Raises the score by about 18 points · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
If you do one thing first · First action
Fix the build. The code didn't build, so the dimensions that need a working build were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, and every grade in this report is provisional. Once the build works, the next survey gives a final score. The compiler's first errors: BC31509: Unable to open resource file 'Codes/ICO.ico': Could not find file 'Codes/ICO.ico'.
Based on: Solution Shape
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €22,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 17 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 4.6 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 9% to 19% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 816 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 3,309 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0.7 to 4.3 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
At a glance — Code Health · 56% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2, D18 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
37
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, establish a CI workflow to build and run tests on every push or pull request, ensuring immediate feedback on code changes. Next, address the lack of automated testing by resolving the identified gaps in code coverage and test distribution to improve reliability. Finally, enhance maintainability and debugging by creating architectural decision records and implementing detailed logging with a verbose flag to capture diagnostic information for user-reported issues.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the `catch` blocks that emit nothing — a discarded exception is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 62
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 488
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 9
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 38
Something this survey could not settle
from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no
positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves
nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean
result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither
rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each
one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 34 of 37 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 37 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 544 of 559 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 45 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'RASP.vbproj' with message: Could not find rule set file "AllRules.ruleset".
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (45 commit(s) sampled).
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's build of this repository exited 1 and the cause could not be attributed, so no assemblies were produced and there was no IL to read. We do not read it as a defect in the repository: an unattributed failure leans OURS. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. No function of a language this check models was read, so there was no async code to examine. That is a limit of the analyzer on this repository, not a finding about it.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java/Kotlin/Scala, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Swift, Erlang, Elixir and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and none of those languages was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift and Dart syntax only, and no C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift or Dart was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
+ 66 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 8 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Form_Main.load_trees (cyclomatic 138), Form_Main.load_bayes_trees (cyclomatic 116), Module_Brushes.str_to_color (cyclomatic 113). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 8 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 2.0 to about 3.2/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 144 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 149 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Form_Main.load_trees (cognitive 615), Form_Main.load_bayes_trees (cognitive 531), View_Tree.draw_tree (cognitive 496). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 149 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 0.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 32 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with View_Tree.vb (9), Config_BGB.vb (6), Config_Lagrange.vb (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (32 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Config_Lagrange.vb, Tool_Omitted.vb, Tool_Combine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with View_Tree.vb, Config_BGB.vb, Config_Lagrange.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
201 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 13 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 113 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 12 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Form_Main.vb (4), View_Tree.vb (3), Config_BBM.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Form_Main.vb (6), Config_BBM.vb, Batch Tools.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Form_Main.vb (4), Config_Chrom.vb (2), Tool_Combine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.
Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.
No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.
No automated tests
What to do
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 84 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 1 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 83 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
26 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 24952 LoC in the .NET projects (0.9/KLoC) → score 8.1. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.
EmptyCatchBlock · ×25codes/Config_BBM.vb:37
TodoCommentcodes/Form_AboutBox.vb:15
What to do
Resolve the 25 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Form_Main.vb (13), Module_Var.vb (3), Tool_Cluster.vb (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Form_AboutBox.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
1 projects, 35 source files, 24952 hand-written lines of code (24952 production / 0 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 10350 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 0 inter-project edges (build failed).
Build failed
What to do
Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is a well-written overview of the project and its purpose. It states RASP (Reconstruct Ancestral State in Phylogenies) as the software, gives an install link to two sources, and lists six tutorials with links plus a downloadable zip bundle. The document ends at a clipped marker mid-tutorial list, so any unshown sections are not flagged; it is clear from the visible text that RASP is described and its usage is outlined (tutorials).
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README is a well-written overview of the project and its purpose. It states RASP (Reconstruct Ancestral State in Phylogenies) as the software, gives an install link to two sources, and lists six tutorials with links plus a downloadable zip bundle. The document ends at a clipped marker mid-tutorial list, so any unshown sections are not flagged; it is clear from the visible text that RASP is described and its usage is outlined (tutorials).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
92 % of calls cross a namespace and 1 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: REDACTED scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
63 finding(s): 0 critical, 63 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 36 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (34), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (36 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0RASP.vbproj:3
What to do
Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with RASP.vbproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
~25k production LoC (51 types) across 1 project(s) / 4 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.
What to do
Introduce deliberate module boundaries — by feature (vertical slices) if your team prefers, or by layer (domain/application/infrastructure). Even splitting into a few cohesive projects with a clear dependency direction would help.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.
What to do
Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the `catch` blocks that emit nothing — a discarded exception is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.
For more than a log file, an `ActivitySource`/`EventSource` the user can switch on gives you a structured trace to attach to a bug report. A health-check endpoint does not apply here: nothing orchestrates or load-balances a binary the user launches.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 75 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Visual Basic code has 26,532 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Config_BBM.vb:37— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:114— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:1004— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:2646— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:3157— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:4240— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:4286— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:4298— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:4503— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:4560— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:4630— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:5776— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:6935— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Main.vb:8898— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Form_Welcome.vb:101— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Module_Var.vb:173— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Module_Var.vb:189— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Module_Var.vb:229— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:396— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:612— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:737— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_SvT.vb:243— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_TvS.vb:35— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_TvS.vb:69— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock codes/Tool_TvS.vb:77— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen.
MethodTooLong: Module_Brushes.str_to_color codes/Module_Brushes.vb:36— MethodTooLong — str_to_color runs 339 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 239 over it, 3.39× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.draw_tree codes/View_Tree.vb:1219— MethodTooLong — draw_tree runs 320 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 220 over it, 3.20× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.Global_Info codes/View_Tree.vb:1687— MethodTooLong — Global_Info runs 273 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 173 over it, 2.73× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Batch_Tools.load_final_trees codes/Batch Tools.vb:42— MethodTooLong — load_final_trees runs 255 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 155 over it, 2.55× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.read_results codes/View_Tree.vb:764— MethodTooLong — read_results runs 249 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 149 over it, 2.49× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BGB.Button13_Click codes/Config_BGB.vb:1198— MethodTooLong — Button13_Click runs 242 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 142 over it, 2.42× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Tool_Combine.combine_result codes/Tool_Combine.vb:182— MethodTooLong — combine_result runs 242 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 142 over it, 2.42× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Module_Tree.Ploy_Tree.New(…) codes/Module_Tree.vb:42— MethodTooLong — New(…) runs 236 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 136 over it, 2.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.Read_Poly_Tree codes/View_Tree.vb:233— MethodTooLong — Read_Poly_Tree runs 206 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 106 over it, 2.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BGB.Read_Poly_Tree codes/Config_BGB.vb:469— MethodTooLong — Read_Poly_Tree runs 178 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 78 over it, 1.78× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_Lagrange.Read_Poly_Tree codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:611— MethodTooLong — Read_Poly_Tree runs 177 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 77 over it, 1.77× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Tool_TvS.claculate_score codes/Tool_TvS.vb:93— MethodTooLong — claculate_score runs 167 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 67 over it, 1.67× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.Get_Info codes/View_Tree.vb:1986— MethodTooLong — Get_Info runs 163 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 63 over it, 1.63× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BGB.Config_BGB_VisibleChanged codes/Config_BGB.vb:303— MethodTooLong — Config_BGB_VisibleChanged runs 159 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 59 over it, 1.59× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.Swap_tree codes/View_Tree.vb:65— MethodTooLong — Swap_tree runs 158 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.58× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_Lagrange.Lag_Config_VisibleChanged codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:451— MethodTooLong — Lag_Config_VisibleChanged runs 153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 53 over it, 1.53× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BGB.Button11_Click codes/Config_BGB.vb:1041— MethodTooLong — Button11_Click runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BayArea.Read_Poly_Tree codes/Config_BayArea.vb:127— MethodTooLong — Read_Poly_Tree runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_Lagrange.Button11_Click codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1161— MethodTooLong — Button11_Click runs 147 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 47 over it, 1.47× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Tool_Combine.get_tree_length codes/Tool_Combine.vb:10— MethodTooLong — get_tree_length runs 145 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 45 over it, 1.45× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.EventLine codes/View_Tree.vb:2823— MethodTooLong — EventLine runs 140 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.40× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BGB.Read_LG_Tree codes/Config_BGB.vb:141— MethodTooLong — Read_LG_Tree runs 138 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.38× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_Lagrange.Read_LG_Tree codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:142— MethodTooLong — Read_LG_Tree runs 138 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.38× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: View_Tree.Swap_Whole codes/View_Tree.vb:3429— MethodTooLong — Swap_Whole runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Config_BBM.Button1_Click codes/Config_BBM.vb:10— MethodTooLong — Button1_Click runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:181— codes/View_Tree.vb:181-189 | codes/View_Tree.vb:194-202 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:3515— codes/View_Tree.vb:3515-3523 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3527-3535 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Config_BBM.vb:12— codes/Config_BBM.vb:12-20 | codes/Config_Traits.vb:10-18 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:3495— codes/Form_Main.vb:3495-3503 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3646-3654 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4012— codes/Form_Main.vb:4012-4020 | codes/Form_Main.vb:4028-4036 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Module_Stat.vb:164— codes/Module_Stat.vb:164-172 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:179-187 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Tool_DPP.vb:243— codes/Tool_DPP.vb:243-251 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3393-3401 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:167— codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:167-175 | codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:179-187 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2917— codes/Form_Main.vb:2917-2925 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7081-7090 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:9302— codes/Form_Main.vb:9302-9310 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:270-278 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1585— codes/View_Tree.vb:1585-1593 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1611-1619 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) codes/Tool_SvT.vb:313— codes/Tool_SvT.vb:313-321 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:399-407 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Config_BBM.vb:188— codes/Config_BBM.vb:188-198 | codes/Config_BBM.vb:209-219 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_BBM.vb:207` calls `WriteLine`, `Distributiton_to_Binary` and `codes/Config_BBM.vb:186` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Batch Tools.vb:242— codes/Batch Tools.vb:242-252 | codes/Batch Tools.vb:267-277 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:574— codes/Form_Main.vb:574-584 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5428-5438 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:3045— codes/Form_Main.vb:3045-3055 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3060-3070 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7379— codes/Form_Main.vb:7379-7389 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7436-7446 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2511— codes/Form_Main.vb:2511-2521 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3022-3032 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4115— codes/Form_Main.vb:4115-4125 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6164-6174 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8224— codes/Form_Main.vb:8224-8234 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8327-8337 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:217— codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:217-227 | codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:230-240 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:678— codes/View_Tree.vb:678-688 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1178-1188 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2347— codes/Form_Main.vb:2347-2352 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2565-2570 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2347— codes/Form_Main.vb:2347-2352 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5395-5400 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:93— codes/Config_Chrom.vb:93-98 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:176-181 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `codes/Config_Chrom.vb:93` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:114— codes/Config_Chrom.vb:114-119 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:353-358 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:6807— codes/Form_Main.vb:6807-6812 | codes/View_Tree.vb:387-392 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7111— codes/Form_Main.vb:7111-7116 | codes/Tool_DPP.vb:173-178 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Combine.vb:200— codes/Tool_Combine.vb:200-205 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:287-292 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:309— codes/Tool_TvS.vb:309-314 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:431-436 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1729— codes/View_Tree.vb:1729-1734 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2014-2019 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:2020` calls `TaxonName`, `CInt` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:1735` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:681— codes/Config_BGB.vb:681-686 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:823-828 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
ClassTooLong: Config_Lagrange codes/Config_Lagrange.vb— ClassTooLong — 1376 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 29 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 976 over it, 3.44× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Tool_Omitted codes/Tool_Omitted.vb— ClassTooLong — 684 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 20 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 284 over it, 1.71× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Tool_Combine codes/Tool_Combine.vb— ClassTooLong — 480 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 10 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 80 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Config_SDIVA codes/Config_SDIVA.vb— ClassTooLong — 475 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 26 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.19× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Tool_TvS codes/Tool_TvS.vb— ClassTooLong — 452 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Config_Chrom codes/Config_Chrom.vb— ClassTooLong — 443 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 18 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 43 over it, 1.11× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Config_Traits codes/Config_Traits.vb— ClassTooLong — 430 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 12 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.08× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Config_BayArea codes/Config_BayArea.vb— ClassTooLong — 422 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 15 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: View_Dis codes/View_Dis.vb— ClassTooLong — 412 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 23 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:623— codes/Config_BGB.vb:623-630 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:764-771 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:479— codes/Config_BGB.vb:479-486 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6683-6690 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:487` calls `tree_char` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:6691` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4016— codes/Form_Main.vb:4016-4023 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6040-6047 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8860— codes/Form_Main.vb:8860-8867 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8919-8926 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:109— codes/Config_BGB.vb:109-116 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:288-295 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7903— codes/Form_Main.vb:7903-7910 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7972-7979 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:16— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:16-24 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:85-92 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:405— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:405-413 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:554-561 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:134— codes/Tool_TvS.vb:134-141 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:186-193 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Tool_TvS.vb:194` calls `Item` and `codes/Tool_TvS.vb:142` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:216— codes/View_Tree.vb:216-220 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3552-3556 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:281— codes/Config_Chrom.vb:281-285 | codes/Config_Traits.vb:303-307 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:3927— codes/Form_Main.vb:3927-3931 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5151-5155 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7876— codes/Form_Main.vb:7876-7880 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7945-7949 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/View_Dis.vb:245— codes/View_Dis.vb:245-249 | codes/View_Dis.vb:252-256 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/Config_BayArea.vb:79— codes/Config_BayArea.vb:79-83 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:85-89 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:649— codes/Config_BGB.vb:649-653 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:790-794 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:580— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:580-584 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:595-599 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:693— codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:693-704 | codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:716-727 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/Batch Tools.vb:67— codes/Batch Tools.vb:67-78 | codes/Batch Tools.vb:83-94 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2415— codes/Form_Main.vb:2415-2426 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2662-2673 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5365— codes/Form_Main.vb:5365-5376 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5380-5391 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5892— codes/Form_Main.vb:5892-5903 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7367-7378 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7218— codes/Form_Main.vb:7218-7229 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7280-7291 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:3668— codes/View_Tree.vb:3668-3681 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3705-3716 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:531— codes/Config_BGB.vb:531-547 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:672-688 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7190— codes/Form_Main.vb:7190-7206 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7250-7266 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:7267` calls `old_tree_char` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:7207` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:858— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:858-874 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:884-900 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:6826— codes/Form_Main.vb:6826-6842 | codes/View_Tree.vb:511-527 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:66— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:66-82 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:104-120 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4032— codes/Form_Main.vb:4032-4045 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6068-6081 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:544— codes/Config_BGB.vb:544-557 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6737-6750 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:1405— codes/Form_Main.vb:1405-1418 | codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:279-292 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:3412— codes/Form_Main.vb:3412-3425 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:957-970 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5228— codes/Form_Main.vb:5228-5241 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5330-5343 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:5345` calls `f_t_name` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:5242` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:282— codes/Tool_TvS.vb:282-288 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:416-422 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1296— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1296-1302 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:394-400 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) codes/View_Pie.vb:66— codes/View_Pie.vb:66-72 | codes/View_Pie.vb:279-285 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1305— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1305-1312 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:424-430 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1210— codes/View_Tree.vb:1210-1216 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3104-3111 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) codes/Config_BGB.vb:219— codes/Config_BGB.vb:219-223 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:562-566 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:220-224 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:703-707 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6755-6759 | codes/Module_Var.vb:298-302 | codes/View_Tree.vb:323-327 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Module_Var.vb:296` calls `Temp_node` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:321` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) codes/Config_BGB.vb:221— codes/Config_BGB.vb:221-225 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:564-568 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:219-223 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:222-226 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:705-709 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6757-6761 | codes/View_Tree.vb:325-329 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_BayArea.vb:216` calls `IsNumeric`, `tree_char` and `codes/Config_BGB.vb:220` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) codes/Config_BGB.vb:223— codes/Config_BGB.vb:223-227 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:566-570 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:221-225 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:224-228 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:707-711 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6759-6763 | codes/Module_Var.vb:301-305 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:222` calls `Poly_Node`, `Temp_node` and `codes/Module_Var.vb:300` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) codes/Config_BGB.vb:225— codes/Config_BGB.vb:225-229 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:568-572 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:223-227 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:226-230 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:709-713 | codes/Module_Var.vb:303-307 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:101-105 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:222` calls `Poly_Node`, `Temp_node` and `codes/Module_Var.vb:300` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:281— codes/Config_Chrom.vb:281-285 | codes/Config_Traits.vb:303-307 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2129-2133 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3927-3931 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3990-3994 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5151-5155 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6000-6004 — there are 7 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 7 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
FileTooLong: codes/View_Tree.vb codes/View_Tree.vb— FileTooLong — 3503 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3003 over it, 7.01× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: codes/Config_BGB.vb codes/Config_BGB.vb— FileTooLong — 1588 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1088 over it, 3.18× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: codes/Config_Lagrange.vb codes/Config_Lagrange.vb— FileTooLong — 1378 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 878 over it, 2.76× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: codes/Tool_Omitted.vb codes/Tool_Omitted.vb— FileTooLong — 687 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 187 over it, 1.37× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×4
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Config_BGB.vb:656— codes/Config_BGB.vb:656-678 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:284-306 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:798-820 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6826-6842 | codes/View_Tree.vb:511-527 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Config_BGB.vb:692— codes/Config_BGB.vb:692-747 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:750-797 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:1480-1503 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:834-886 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:890-932 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Form_Main.vb:445— codes/Form_Main.vb:445-1059 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2287-2500 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2503-2730 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5223-5321 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5324-5816 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Module_Stat.vb:133— codes/Module_Stat.vb:133-143 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:148-158 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:163-173 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:178-188 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:193-203 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:185— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:185-196 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:1040-1052 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:121— codes/Tool_TvS.vb:121-133 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:173-184 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1649— codes/View_Tree.vb:1649-1660 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3834-3846 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1712— codes/View_Tree.vb:1712-1723 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1995-2007 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) codes/Module_Stat.vb:133— codes/Module_Stat.vb:133-142 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:148-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:693— codes/Config_BGB.vb:693-703 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:751-760 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:1163— codes/Form_Main.vb:1163-1173 | codes/Form_Main.vb:1953-1962 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) codes/Tool_SvT.vb:265— codes/Tool_SvT.vb:265-274 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:376-385 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:633— codes/Config_BGB.vb:633-648 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:774-789 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8706— codes/Form_Main.vb:8706-8721 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8731-8746 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:9111— codes/Form_Main.vb:9111-9126 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9536-9551 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:883— codes/Config_BGB.vb:883-895 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1005-1017 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1745— codes/View_Tree.vb:1745-1757 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2034-2046 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:2047` calls `CInt`, `Result_list` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:1758` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) codes/View_Dis.vb:175— codes/View_Dis.vb:175-187 | codes/View_Dis.vb:189-201 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:126— codes/Config_BGB.vb:126-132 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:126-132 | codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:132-137 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:133` calls `IndexOf`, `Items` and `codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:138` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:2129— codes/Form_Main.vb:2129-2134 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3990-3995 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6000-6005 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:860— codes/Config_BGB.vb:860-865 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:986-991 | codes/Tool_DPP.vb:77-82 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
TooManyMethods: View_Tree codes/View_Tree.vb— TooManyMethods — 3497 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 82 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 52 over it, 2.73× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Config_BGB codes/Config_BGB.vb— TooManyMethods — 1586 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Form_Main.vb:8081— codes/Form_Main.vb:8081-8125 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8224-8323 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8327-8424 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8428-8526 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/View_Dis.vb:297— codes/View_Dis.vb:297-338 | codes/View_Pie.vb:221-256 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2457-2497 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3163-3204 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (106 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:587— codes/Form_Main.vb:587-692 | codes/Form_Main.vb:792-897 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (106 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5441— codes/Form_Main.vb:5441-5546 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5606-5711 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:656— codes/Config_BGB.vb:656-678 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:284-306 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:798-820 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:84— codes/Config_BGB.vb:84-106 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:82-104 | codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:81-103 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:495— codes/Form_Main.vb:495-516 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2529-2550 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2637— codes/Form_Main.vb:2637-2658 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3148-3169 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4128— codes/Form_Main.vb:4128-4148 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6175-6196 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:3001— codes/View_Tree.vb:3001-3021 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3024-3045 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8451— codes/Form_Main.vb:8451-8471 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8784-8804 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) codes/View_BBM.vb:105— codes/View_BBM.vb:105-125 | codes/View_BBM.vb:154-174 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/View_BBM.vb:152` calls `drawfig3` and `codes/View_BBM.vb:104` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:6965— codes/Form_Main.vb:6965-6982 | codes/Module_Var.vb:365-382 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8876— codes/Form_Main.vb:8876-8893 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8972-8989 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:8894` calls `MsgBox`, `ToString` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:8990` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:200— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:200-214 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:237-251 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:1055-1069 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:200` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:196` calls `Replace` and `codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:234` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:6294— codes/Form_Main.vb:6294-6308 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6495-6509 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9392-9406 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:36— codes/Config_BGB.vb:36-47 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:34-45 | codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:29-40 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:1827— codes/Form_Main.vb:1827-1839 | codes/Form_Main.vb:1976-1987 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2187-2198 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 6) codes/Config_BGB.vb:215— codes/Config_BGB.vb:215-225 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:558-568 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:216-226 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:699-709 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6751-6761 | codes/View_Tree.vb:319-329 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 6) codes/Form_Main.vb:500— codes/Form_Main.vb:500-510 | codes/Form_Main.vb:515-525 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2317-2327 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2331-2341 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2534-2544 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2549-2559 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:2342` calls `Replace` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:526` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:881— codes/Config_BGB.vb:881-891 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:307-317 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1003-1013 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:880` calls `write_time_period` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:306` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:460— codes/Form_Main.vb:460-470 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5228-5238 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5330-5340 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:471` calls `StreamWriter` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:5239` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:8546— codes/Form_Main.vb:8546-8555 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9111-9120 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9536-9545 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) codes/View_Tree.vb:3415— codes/View_Tree.vb:3415-3424 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3673-3682 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3708-3717 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:8228— codes/Form_Main.vb:8228-8235 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8331-8338 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8766-8773 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:713— codes/Config_BGB.vb:713-720 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:1493-1500 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:853-860 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) codes/Config_BGB.vb:234— codes/Config_BGB.vb:234-238 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:577-581 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:232-236 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:235-239 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:718-722 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:110-114 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) codes/Config_BGB.vb:262— codes/Config_BGB.vb:262-266 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:605-609 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:263-267 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:746-750 | codes/Module_Var.vb:330-334 | codes/View_Tree.vb:377-381 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Module_Var.vb:336` calls `Temp_node`, `tree_char` and `codes/Config_BGB.vb:267` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 3) codes/View_Tree.vb:2842— codes/View_Tree.vb:2842-2846 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2853-2855 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2866-2870 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:2847` calls `temp_time_area`, `RASP_Event`, `Exp` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:2856` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 3) codes/View_Tree.vb:2848— codes/View_Tree.vb:2848-2852 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2854-2856 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2872-2876 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Appears unstructured (no recognised architecture) — ~25k production LoC (51 types) across 1 project(s) / 4 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.
Form_Main.load_trees (cyclomatic 138) codes/Form_Main.vb:444— Form_Main.load_trees has cyclomatic complexity 138 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.load_bayes_trees (cyclomatic 116) codes/Form_Main.vb:5323— Form_Main.load_bayes_trees has cyclomatic complexity 116 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Module_Brushes.str_to_color (cyclomatic 113) codes/Module_Brushes.vb:36— Module_Brushes.str_to_color has cyclomatic complexity 113 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.do_analysis (cyclomatic 101) codes/Form_Main.vb:1739— Form_Main.do_analysis has cyclomatic complexity 101 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.draw_tree (cyclomatic 94) codes/View_Tree.vb:1219— View_Tree.draw_tree has cyclomatic complexity 94 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Batch_Tools.load_final_trees (cyclomatic 64) codes/Batch Tools.vb:42— Batch_Tools.load_final_trees has cyclomatic complexity 64 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
View_Tree.read_results (cyclomatic 62) codes/View_Tree.vb:764— View_Tree.read_results has cyclomatic complexity 62 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.FDTimer_Tick (cyclomatic 61) codes/Form_Main.vb:4270— Form_Main.FDTimer_Tick has cyclomatic complexity 61 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.Global_Info (cyclomatic 57) codes/View_Tree.vb:1687— View_Tree.Global_Info has cyclomatic complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_BGB.Button13_Click (cyclomatic 55) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1198— Config_BGB.Button13_Click has cyclomatic complexity 55 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Tool_Combine.combine_result (cyclomatic 54) codes/Tool_Combine.vb:182— Tool_Combine.combine_result has cyclomatic complexity 54 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 48) codes/Form_Main.vb:7502— Form_Main.Button1_Click has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Ploy_Tree.New.ctor (cyclomatic 48) codes/Module_Tree.vb:42— Ploy_Tree.New.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.make_final_trees (cyclomatic 45) codes/Form_Main.vb:2286— Form_Main.make_final_trees has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.load_final_trees (cyclomatic 44) codes/Form_Main.vb:2502— Form_Main.load_final_trees has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.Read_Poly_Tree (cyclomatic 43) codes/View_Tree.vb:233— View_Tree.Read_Poly_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.remove_taxon (cyclomatic 41) codes/Form_Main.vb:7147— Form_Main.remove_taxon has cyclomatic complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_TvS.claculate_score (cyclomatic 40) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:93— Tool_TvS.claculate_score has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.check_mrbayes (cyclomatic 36) codes/Form_Main.vb:3019— Form_Main.check_mrbayes has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.Swap_tree (cyclomatic 36) codes/View_Tree.vb:65— View_Tree.Swap_tree has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
View_Tree.Get_Info (cyclomatic 36) codes/View_Tree.vb:1986— View_Tree.Get_Info has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_BGB.Read_Poly_Tree (cyclomatic 34) codes/Config_BGB.vb:469— Config_BGB.Read_Poly_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_Lagrange.Read_Poly_Tree (cyclomatic 34) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:611— Config_Lagrange.Read_Poly_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.read_new_bayes_log (cyclomatic 34) codes/Form_Main.vb:5965— Form_Main.read_new_bayes_log has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.comb_result_all (cyclomatic 33) codes/Form_Main.vb:4989— Form_Main.comb_result_all has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_BayArea.Read_Poly_Tree (cyclomatic 32) codes/Config_BayArea.vb:127— Config_BayArea.Read_Poly_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
View_Tree.Swap_Whole (cyclomatic 30) codes/View_Tree.vb:3429— View_Tree.Swap_Whole has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
View_Dis.cal_column (cyclomatic 29) codes/View_Dis.vb:77— View_Dis.cal_column has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.get_tree_length (cyclomatic 28) codes/Form_Main.vb:6668— Form_Main.get_tree_length has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_BGB.Read_LG_Tree (cyclomatic 27) codes/Config_BGB.vb:141— Config_BGB.Read_LG_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_Lagrange.Read_LG_Tree (cyclomatic 27) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:142— Config_Lagrange.Read_LG_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.load_names (cyclomatic 27) codes/Form_Main.vb:307— Form_Main.load_names has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.Build_Final_Tree (cyclomatic 27) codes/Form_Main.vb:3493— Form_Main.Build_Final_Tree has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.read_range_log (cyclomatic 27) codes/Form_Main.vb:3955— Form_Main.read_range_log has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.write_remove_og (cyclomatic 27) codes/Form_Main.vb:7351— Form_Main.write_remove_og has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.Timer_R_Tick (cyclomatic 27) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:265— Tool_Cluster.Timer_R_Tick has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Tool_Combine.get_tree_length (cyclomatic 27) codes/Tool_Combine.vb:10— Tool_Combine.get_tree_length has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
View_Tree.draw_diagram (cyclomatic 27) codes/View_Tree.vb:2980— View_Tree.draw_diagram has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_Lagrange.Button3_Click (cyclomatic 26) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:288— Config_Lagrange.Button3_Click has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.LoadDistrutionToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 26) codes/Form_Main.vb:2772— Form_Main.LoadDistrutionToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.make_file_BGB (cyclomatic 26) codes/Form_Main.vb:6293— Form_Main.make_file_BGB has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.EventLine (cyclomatic 26) codes/View_Tree.vb:2823— View_Tree.EventLine has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_BBM.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 25) codes/Config_BBM.vb:10— Config_BBM.Button1_Click has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_SDIVA.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 24) codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:418— Config_SDIVA.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.runDIVA (cyclomatic 24) codes/Form_Main.vb:1109— Form_Main.runDIVA has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.make_file_dec (cyclomatic 24) codes/Form_Main.vb:6494— Form_Main.make_file_dec has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Module_Var.Read_Poly_Node (cyclomatic 24) codes/Module_Var.vb:239— Module_Var.Read_Poly_Node has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Tool_Omitted.f_node (cyclomatic 24) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:310— Tool_Omitted.f_node has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.read_node (cyclomatic 23) codes/Form_Main.vb:1309— Form_Main.read_node has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_Traits.read_traits_file (cyclomatic 22) codes/Config_Traits.vb:241— Config_Traits.read_traits_file has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Tool_SvT.find_best_tree (cyclomatic 22) codes/Tool_SvT.vb:34— Tool_SvT.find_best_tree has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_BGB.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 20) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1624— Config_BGB.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_Lagrange.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click_1 (cyclomatic 20) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1403— Config_Lagrange.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click_1 has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
View_Tree.Form1_Load (cyclomatic 20) codes/View_Tree.vb:534— View_Tree.Form1_Load has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.make_final_tree (cyclomatic 19) codes/Form_Main.vb:3408— Form_Main.make_final_tree has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.read_bayarea (cyclomatic 19) codes/Form_Main.vb:3835— Form_Main.read_bayarea has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.BioGeoBEARSToolStripMenuItem2_Click (cyclomatic 19) codes/Form_Main.vb:8223— Form_Main.BioGeoBEARSToolStripMenuItem2_Click has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Form_Main.DIVALIKEInBiogenBEARSToolStripMenuItem_Click) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.DIVALIKEInBiogenBEARSToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 19) codes/Form_Main.vb:8326— Form_Main.DIVALIKEInBiogenBEARSToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Form_Main.BioGeoBEARSToolStripMenuItem2_Click) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Omitted.e_node (cyclomatic 19) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:407— Tool_Omitted.e_node has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.load_beast_trees (cyclomatic 18) codes/Form_Main.vb:5222— Form_Main.load_beast_trees has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.StatisticalDIVALIKEToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 18) codes/Form_Main.vb:8427— Form_Main.StatisticalDIVALIKEToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.StatisticalERSYMARDInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 18) codes/Form_Main.vb:9313— Form_Main.StatisticalERSYMARDInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.draw_col (cyclomatic 18) codes/View_Tree.vb:2228— View_Tree.draw_col has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_BBM.Write_Bayes_nex (cyclomatic 17) codes/Config_BBM.vb:168— Config_BBM.Write_Bayes_nex has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Config_Traits.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 17) codes/Config_Traits.vb:7— Config_Traits.Button1_Click has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.read_DEC (cyclomatic 17) codes/Form_Main.vb:4902— Form_Main.read_DEC has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.StatisticalDispersalVicarianceAnalysisSDIVAToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 17) codes/Form_Main.vb:8529— Form_Main.StatisticalDispersalVicarianceAnalysisSDIVAToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.ERSYMARDModelInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click (cyclomatic 17) codes/Form_Main.vb:9156— Form_Main.ERSYMARDModelInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.AreaLine (cyclomatic 17) codes/View_Tree.vb:2709— View_Tree.AreaLine has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Form_Main.add_tree_length (cyclomatic 16) codes/Form_Main.vb:8913— Form_Main.add_tree_length has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 32 of the 71 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 673 of the 1441 points over it (47%), 2.4× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 286). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.make_final_tree (cyclomatic 16) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:956— Tool_Cluster.make_final_tree has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
TodoComment codes/Form_AboutBox.vb:15— ' TODO: 在项目的“应用程序”窗格中自定义此应用程序的程序集信息 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 1), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: BC31509: Unable to open resource file 'Codes/ICO.ico': Could not find file 'Codes/ICO.ico'..
Form_Main.load_trees (cognitive 615) codes/Form_Main.vb:444— Form_Main.load_trees has cognitive complexity 615 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.load_bayes_trees (cognitive 531) codes/Form_Main.vb:5323— Form_Main.load_bayes_trees has cognitive complexity 531 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.draw_tree (cognitive 496) codes/View_Tree.vb:1219— View_Tree.draw_tree has cognitive complexity 496 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.do_analysis (cognitive 413) codes/Form_Main.vb:1739— Form_Main.do_analysis has cognitive complexity 413 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Batch_Tools.load_final_trees (cognitive 286) codes/Batch Tools.vb:42— Batch_Tools.load_final_trees has cognitive complexity 286 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.read_results (cognitive 283) codes/View_Tree.vb:764— View_Tree.read_results has cognitive complexity 283 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.make_final_trees (cognitive 208) codes/Form_Main.vb:2286— Form_Main.make_final_trees has cognitive complexity 208 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.Global_Info (cognitive 173) codes/View_Tree.vb:1687— View_Tree.Global_Info has cognitive complexity 173 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.Get_Info (cognitive 167) codes/View_Tree.vb:1986— View_Tree.Get_Info has cognitive complexity 167 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.load_final_trees (cognitive 137) codes/Form_Main.vb:2502— Form_Main.load_final_trees has cognitive complexity 137 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Combine.combine_result (cognitive 129) codes/Tool_Combine.vb:182— Tool_Combine.combine_result has cognitive complexity 129 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.FDTimer_Tick (cognitive 121) codes/Form_Main.vb:4270— Form_Main.FDTimer_Tick has cognitive complexity 121 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.Button1_Click (cognitive 121) codes/Form_Main.vb:7502— Form_Main.Button1_Click has cognitive complexity 121 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.check_mrbayes (cognitive 120) codes/Form_Main.vb:3019— Form_Main.check_mrbayes has cognitive complexity 120 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Ploy_Tree.New.ctor (cognitive 115) codes/Module_Tree.vb:42— Ploy_Tree.New.ctor has cognitive complexity 115 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.draw_diagram (cognitive 114) codes/View_Tree.vb:2980— View_Tree.draw_diagram has cognitive complexity 114 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Module_Brushes.str_to_color (cognitive 112) codes/Module_Brushes.vb:36— Module_Brushes.str_to_color has cognitive complexity 112 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_TvS.claculate_score (cognitive 112) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:93— Tool_TvS.claculate_score has cognitive complexity 112 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Dis.cal_column (cognitive 110) codes/View_Dis.vb:77— View_Dis.cal_column has cognitive complexity 110 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.Read_Poly_Tree (cognitive 109) codes/View_Tree.vb:233— View_Tree.Read_Poly_Tree has cognitive complexity 109 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.load_names (cognitive 107) codes/Form_Main.vb:307— Form_Main.load_names has cognitive complexity 107 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.comb_result_all (cognitive 101) codes/Form_Main.vb:4989— Form_Main.comb_result_all has cognitive complexity 101 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_SDIVA.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 94) codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:418— Config_SDIVA.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 94 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.LoadDistrutionToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 86) codes/Form_Main.vb:2772— Form_Main.LoadDistrutionToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 86 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.EventLine (cognitive 80) codes/View_Tree.vb:2823— View_Tree.EventLine has cognitive complexity 80 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.Read_Poly_Tree (cognitive 78) codes/Config_BGB.vb:469— Config_BGB.Read_Poly_Tree has cognitive complexity 78 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.Read_Poly_Tree (cognitive 78) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:611— Config_Lagrange.Read_Poly_Tree has cognitive complexity 78 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.Button13_Click (cognitive 77) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1198— Config_BGB.Button13_Click has cognitive complexity 77 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 74) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1624— Config_BGB.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click_1 (cognitive 74) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1403— Config_Lagrange.LoadSettingToolStripMenuItem_Click_1 has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.Swap_Whole (cognitive 73) codes/View_Tree.vb:3429— View_Tree.Swap_Whole has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Traits.TimerTraits_Tick (cognitive 71) codes/Config_Traits.vb:350— Config_Traits.TimerTraits_Tick has cognitive complexity 71 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BayArea.Read_Poly_Tree (cognitive 68) codes/Config_BayArea.vb:127— Config_BayArea.Read_Poly_Tree has cognitive complexity 68 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_SvT.find_best_tree (cognitive 67) codes/Tool_SvT.vb:34— Tool_SvT.find_best_tree has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.get_tree_length (cognitive 66) codes/Form_Main.vb:6668— Form_Main.get_tree_length has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.write_remove_og (cognitive 66) codes/Form_Main.vb:7351— Form_Main.write_remove_og has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_BGB.Read_LG_Tree (cognitive 65) codes/Config_BGB.vb:141— Config_BGB.Read_LG_Tree has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.Read_LG_Tree (cognitive 65) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:142— Config_Lagrange.Read_LG_Tree has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_Combine.get_tree_length (cognitive 65) codes/Tool_Combine.vb:10— Tool_Combine.get_tree_length has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.remove_taxon (cognitive 64) codes/Form_Main.vb:7147— Form_Main.remove_taxon has cognitive complexity 64 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.Swap_tree (cognitive 64) codes/View_Tree.vb:65— View_Tree.Swap_tree has cognitive complexity 64 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.Form1_Load (cognitive 62) codes/View_Tree.vb:534— View_Tree.Form1_Load has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.Button10_Click (cognitive 61) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1025— Config_Lagrange.Button10_Click has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_Omitted.f_node (cognitive 61) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:310— Tool_Omitted.f_node has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.read_new_bayes_log (cognitive 57) codes/Form_Main.vb:5965— Form_Main.read_new_bayes_log has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_DPP.Button4_Click (cognitive 57) codes/Tool_DPP.vb:92— Tool_DPP.Button4_Click has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.StatisticalDispersalVicarianceAnalysisSDIVAToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 56) codes/Form_Main.vb:8529— Form_Main.StatisticalDispersalVicarianceAnalysisSDIVAToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Module_Var.Read_Poly_Node (cognitive 56) codes/Module_Var.vb:239— Module_Var.Read_Poly_Node has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.draw_col (cognitive 56) codes/View_Tree.vb:2228— View_Tree.draw_col has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.make_final_tree (cognitive 55) codes/Form_Main.vb:3408— Form_Main.make_final_tree has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.load_beast_trees (cognitive 54) codes/Form_Main.vb:5222— Form_Main.load_beast_trees has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.read_DEC (cognitive 52) codes/Form_Main.vb:4902— Form_Main.read_DEC has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.make_fdw_matrix (cognitive 52) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:15— Tool_Cluster.make_fdw_matrix has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.SaveDistributionToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 51) codes/Form_Main.vb:5881— Form_Main.SaveDistributionToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.make_file_BGB (cognitive 51) codes/Form_Main.vb:6293— Form_Main.make_file_BGB has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.make_file_dec (cognitive 51) codes/Form_Main.vb:6494— Form_Main.make_file_dec has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.BioGeoBEARSToolStripMenuItem2_Click (cognitive 50) codes/Form_Main.vb:8223— Form_Main.BioGeoBEARSToolStripMenuItem2_Click has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Form_Main.DIVALIKEInBiogenBEARSToolStripMenuItem_Click) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.DIVALIKEInBiogenBEARSToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 50) codes/Form_Main.vb:8326— Form_Main.DIVALIKEInBiogenBEARSToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Form_Main.BioGeoBEARSToolStripMenuItem2_Click) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.StatisticalDIVALIKEToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 48) codes/Form_Main.vb:8427— Form_Main.StatisticalDIVALIKEToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_Traits.read_traits_file (cognitive 47) codes/Config_Traits.vb:241— Config_Traits.read_traits_file has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_Omitted.e_node (cognitive 47) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:407— Tool_Omitted.e_node has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.add_tree_length (cognitive 46) codes/Form_Main.vb:8913— Form_Main.add_tree_length has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.Build_Final_Tree (cognitive 45) codes/Form_Main.vb:3493— Form_Main.Build_Final_Tree has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.AreaLine (cognitive 45) codes/View_Tree.vb:2709— View_Tree.AreaLine has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.StatisticalERSYMARDInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 44) codes/Form_Main.vb:9313— Form_Main.StatisticalERSYMARDInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_BGB.Config_BGB_VisibleChanged (cognitive 43) codes/Config_BGB.vb:303— Config_BGB.Config_BGB_VisibleChanged has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.make_tree_xy (cognitive 43) codes/View_Tree.vb:449— View_Tree.make_tree_xy has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.Readnex (cognitive 42) codes/Form_Main.vb:6856— Form_Main.Readnex has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.Timer_R_Tick (cognitive 42) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:265— Tool_Cluster.Timer_R_Tick has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.runDIVA (cognitive 41) codes/Form_Main.vb:1109— Form_Main.runDIVA has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.make_SC_matrix (cognitive 41) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:84— Tool_Cluster.make_SC_matrix has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.Button3_Click (cognitive 40) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:288— Config_Lagrange.Button3_Click has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.read_range_log (cognitive 40) codes/Form_Main.vb:3955— Form_Main.read_range_log has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_TvS.Timer_R_Tick (cognitive 40) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:7— Tool_TvS.Timer_R_Tick has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.read_node (cognitive 39) codes/Form_Main.vb:1309— Form_Main.read_node has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.read_bayarea (cognitive 39) codes/Form_Main.vb:3835— Form_Main.read_bayarea has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.PicBox2_High (cognitive 39) codes/View_Tree.vb:2176— View_Tree.PicBox2_High has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Chrom.TimerChromEvol_Tick (cognitive 38) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:411— Config_Chrom.TimerChromEvol_Tick has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.StatesVsTreesToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 38) codes/Form_Main.vb:9019— Form_Main.StatesVsTreesToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.TreeWithTimeToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 38) codes/View_Tree.vb:3308— View_Tree.TreeWithTimeToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Dis.drawfig1 (cognitive 37) codes/View_Dis.vb:217— View_Dis.drawfig1 has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.Lag_Config_VisibleChanged (cognitive 36) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:451— Config_Lagrange.Lag_Config_VisibleChanged has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BBM.Write_Bayes_nex (cognitive 35) codes/Config_BBM.vb:168— Config_BBM.Write_Bayes_nex has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.read_time_period (cognitive 34) codes/Config_BGB.vb:901— Config_BGB.read_time_period has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.BayesianBinaryMCMCBBMToolStripMenuItem1_Click (cognitive 33) codes/Form_Main.vb:9104— Form_Main.BayesianBinaryMCMCBBMToolStripMenuItem1_Click has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_BBM.Button1_Click (cognitive 32) codes/Config_BBM.vb:10— Config_BBM.Button1_Click has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_SDIVA.SaveSettingsToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 32) codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:343— Config_SDIVA.SaveSettingsToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.StatisticalDECSDECToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 32) codes/Form_Main.vb:8759— Form_Main.StatisticalDECSDECToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.make_range_P (cognitive 31) codes/Form_Main.vb:4114— Form_Main.make_range_P has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.MultiStateReconstructionInBayesTraitsToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 31) codes/Form_Main.vb:9521— Form_Main.MultiStateReconstructionInBayesTraitsToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Omitted.Fill_clade (cognitive 31) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:89— Tool_Omitted.Fill_clade has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.PictureBox1_MouseDoubleClick (cognitive 31) codes/View_Tree.vb:1580— View_Tree.PictureBox1_MouseDoubleClick has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.Button7_Click (cognitive 30) codes/Config_BGB.vb:821— Config_BGB.Button7_Click has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.Button7_Click (cognitive 30) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:947— Config_Lagrange.Button7_Click has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.BayesianInferenceForDiscreteAreasBayAreaToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 30) codes/Form_Main.vb:8655— Form_Main.BayesianInferenceForDiscreteAreasBayAreaToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.make_final_tree (cognitive 30) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:956— Tool_Cluster.make_final_tree has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_Cluster.ListView1_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 29) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:451— Tool_Cluster.ListView1_SelectedIndexChanged has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Pie.pie_Load (cognitive 29) codes/View_Pie.vb:18— View_Pie.pie_Load has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.read_BGB (cognitive 28) codes/Form_Main.vb:7941— Form_Main.read_BGB has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_Chrom.read_ChromEvol (cognitive 27) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:222— Config_Chrom.read_ChromEvol has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.ERSYMARDModelInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 27) codes/Form_Main.vb:9156— Form_Main.ERSYMARDModelInAPEToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Module_BBM.read_result (cognitive 27) Codes/Module_BBM.vb:21— Module_BBM.read_result has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_Omitted.exchange_clade (cognitive 27) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:138— Tool_Omitted.exchange_clade has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.Load_result (cognitive 27) codes/View_Tree.vb:1129— View_Tree.Load_result has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.ComboBox2_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 25) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1479— Config_BGB.ComboBox2_SelectedIndexChanged has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Chrom.Read_Poly_Tree (cognitive 25) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:11— Config_Chrom.Read_Poly_Tree has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_SDIVA.RangeForm_VisibleChanged (cognitive 25) codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:192— Config_SDIVA.RangeForm_VisibleChanged has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.check_r_package (cognitive 25) codes/Form_Main.vb:8164— Form_Main.check_r_package has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_BBM.drawfig1 (cognitive 25) codes/View_BBM.vb:43— View_BBM.drawfig1 has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Traits.Button1_Click (cognitive 24) codes/Config_Traits.vb:7— Config_Traits.Button1_Click has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.read_tree (cognitive 24) codes/Form_Main.vb:4842— Form_Main.read_tree has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Welcome.Timer1_Tick (cognitive 24) codes/Form_Welcome.vb:34— Form_Welcome.Timer1_Tick has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.SortNum (cognitive 24) codes/View_Tree.vb:691— View_Tree.SortNum has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.BayesTimer_Tick (cognitive 23) codes/Form_Main.vb:4207— Form_Main.BayesTimer_Tick has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.read_geiger (cognitive 23) codes/Form_Main.vb:7872— Form_Main.read_geiger has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.TreeTimeMultiplierToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 23) codes/Form_Main.vb:8851— Form_Main.TreeTimeMultiplierToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Config_BGB.pailie (cognitive 22) codes/Config_BGB.vb:83— Config_BGB.pailie has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.pailie (cognitive 22) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:81— Config_Lagrange.pailie has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_SDIVA.pailie (cognitive 22) codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:80— Config_SDIVA.pailie has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.pailie (cognitive 22) codes/Form_Main.vb:8045— Form_Main.pailie has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_Tree.read_max_reconstruction (cognitive 22) codes/View_Tree.vb:1040— View_Tree.read_max_reconstruction has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.cale_relation (cognitive 22) codes/View_Tree.vb:1089— View_Tree.cale_relation has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.make_new_range (cognitive 21) codes/Form_Main.vb:6163— Form_Main.make_new_range has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Form_Main.make_file_ape (cognitive 21) codes/Form_Main.vb:9391— Form_Main.make_file_ape has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Cluster.write_matrix_limit (cognitive 21) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:144— Tool_Cluster.write_matrix_limit has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_BBM.drawfig2 (cognitive 21) codes/View_BBM.vb:97— View_BBM.drawfig2 has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Pie.Mypaint (cognitive 21) codes/View_Pie.vb:91— View_Pie.Mypaint has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BayArea.make_chain (cognitive 20) codes/Config_BayArea.vb:283— Config_BayArea.make_chain has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.make_chain (cognitive 20) codes/Config_BGB.vb:655— Config_BGB.make_chain has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_BGB.SaveSettingsToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 20) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1575— Config_BGB.SaveSettingsToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.make_chain (cognitive 20) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:797— Config_Lagrange.make_chain has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Lagrange.SaveSettingsToolStripMenuItem_Click_1 (cognitive 20) codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1355— Config_Lagrange.SaveSettingsToolStripMenuItem_Click_1 has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.FormatedTreeToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 20) codes/Form_Main.vb:3237— Form_Main.FormatedTreeToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_TvS.tree_vs_states (cognitive 20) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:308— Tool_TvS.tree_vs_states has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_TvS.state_vs_trees (cognitive 20) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:430— Tool_TvS.state_vs_trees has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.Button2_Click (cognitive 20) codes/View_Tree.vb:2610— View_Tree.Button2_Click has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Chrom.Button3_Click (cognitive 19) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:322— Config_Chrom.Button3_Click has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.Make_Optimize (cognitive 19) codes/Form_Main.vb:154— Form_Main.Make_Optimize has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Convert.Button1_Click (cognitive 19) codes/Tool_Convert.vb:30— Tool_Convert.Button1_Click has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tool_SvT.Tool_State_VisibleChanged (cognitive 19) codes/Tool_SvT.vb:162— Tool_SvT.Tool_State_VisibleChanged has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_SDIVA.NumericUpDown2_ValueChanged (cognitive 18) codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:294— Config_SDIVA.NumericUpDown2_ValueChanged has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Config_Traits.LoadLogToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 18) codes/Config_Traits.vb:422— Config_Traits.LoadLogToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.DispersalExtinctionCladogenesisDECToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 18) codes/Form_Main.vb:8604— Form_Main.DispersalExtinctionCladogenesisDECToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
View_BBM.drawfig3 (cognitive 18) codes/View_BBM.vb:152— View_BBM.drawfig3 has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tracer.View_Tracer_VisibleChanged (cognitive 18) codes/View_Tracer.vb:17— View_Tracer.View_Tracer_VisibleChanged has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Form_Main.LoadTreesDataToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 16) codes/Form_Main.vb:3730— Form_Main.LoadTreesDataToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: codes/Form_Main.vb holds 53 of the 149 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 3377 of the 7350 points over it (46%), 2× the next-largest file (codes/View_Tree.vb at 1675). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Tool_Omitted.export_omitted (cognitive 16) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:534— Tool_Omitted.export_omitted has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.load_color (cognitive 16) codes/View_Tree.vb:718— View_Tree.load_color has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
View_Tree.IncreaseTreeToolStripMenuItem_Click (cognitive 16) codes/View_Tree.vb:3688— View_Tree.IncreaseTreeToolStripMenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 57 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 57 shared lines) codes/Config_BGB.vb:142— codes/Config_BGB.vb:142-284 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:470-653 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:128-281 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:143-285 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:612-794 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:11-160 | codes/View_Tree.vb:234-447 — These 7 members are variants of one another: a block of 57 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 43 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (7 members, 43 shared lines) codes/Config_BGB.vb:142— codes/Config_BGB.vb:142-284 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:470-653 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:128-281 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:143-285 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:612-794 | codes/Module_Var.vb:240-350 | codes/View_Tree.vb:234-447 — These 7 members are variants of one another: a block of 43 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 40 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 40 shared lines) codes/Config_BGB.vb:142— codes/Config_BGB.vb:142-284 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:128-281 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:12-84 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:143-285 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:612-794 — These 5 members are variants of one another: a block of 40 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Near-duplicate member pair (102 shared lines) codes/View_Tree.vb:1688— codes/View_Tree.vb:1688-1984 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1987-2174 — These two members are variants of one another: 102 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (22 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (22 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/View_Tree.vb:536— codes/View_Tree.vb:536-653 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1193-1216 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1581-1625 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1636-1662 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2501-2534 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2539-2555 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2562-2568 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2573-2587 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2591-2605 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2611-2652 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3101-3111 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3115-3124 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3130-3137 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3144-3151 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3228-3254 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3277-3291 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3413-3427 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3612-3634 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3651-3658 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3662-3685 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3689-3720 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3834-3846 — These 22 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 22 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 22 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Config_Traits.vb:423— codes/Config_Traits.vb:423-460 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5882-5940 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7503-7800 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8224-8323 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8327-8424 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8428-8526 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8530-8601 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8605-8652 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8657-8701 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8706-8727 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8731-8756 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8761-8817 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9020-9061 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9106-9154 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9157-9227 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9314-9389 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9522-9566 — These 17 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 17 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 17 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) codes/Config_Chrom.vb:223— codes/Config_Chrom.vb:223-305 | codes/Config_Traits.vb:242-336 | codes/Form_Main.vb:1742-2283 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3836-3953 | codes/Form_Main.vb:3956-4111 | codes/Form_Main.vb:4990-5162 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5966-6161 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
Duplicated block (76 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1120— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1120-1195 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1237-1312 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (59 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1060— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1060-1118 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1177-1235 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (58–59 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:694— codes/Form_Main.vb:694-751 | codes/Form_Main.vb:899-957 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (55–56 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5548— codes/Form_Main.vb:5548-5602 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5713-5768 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (52–53 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:695— codes/Config_BGB.vb:695-747 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:835-886 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (51 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:3957— codes/Form_Main.vb:3957-4007 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5967-6017 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (44–47 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1792— codes/View_Tree.vb:1792-1835 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2082-2128 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (38–39 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:753— codes/Config_BGB.vb:753-791 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:891-928 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:793` calls `Columns` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:929` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:9183— codes/Form_Main.vb:9183-9221 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9341-9379 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5245— codes/Form_Main.vb:5245-5280 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5395-5430 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:822— codes/Config_BGB.vb:822-856 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:948-982 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (33 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4079— codes/Form_Main.vb:4079-4111 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6129-6161 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:174— codes/Config_BGB.vb:174-204 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:175-205 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:50-80 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4047— codes/Form_Main.vb:4047-4076 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6095-6124 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4162— codes/Form_Main.vb:4162-4192 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6198-6228 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 9) codes/Config_BGB.vb:156— codes/Config_BGB.vb:156-185 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:489-518 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:146-175 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:30-59 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:157-186 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:630-659 | codes/Module_Var.vb:252-281 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:32-61 | codes/View_Tree.vb:259-288 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8284— codes/Form_Main.vb:8284-8314 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8386-8415 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:2149— codes/Form_Main.vb:2149-2173 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2248-2272 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (27–29 lines × 2) codes/View_Tree.vb:1760— codes/View_Tree.vb:1760-1786 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2052-2080 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (26–28 lines × 2) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1329— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1329-1354 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:1404-1431 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `codes/Config_BGB.vb:1329` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (25–27 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:4402— codes/Form_Main.vb:4402-4428 | codes/Form_Main.vb:4519-4543 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:8667— codes/Form_Main.vb:8667-8690 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9116-9141 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:8268— codes/Form_Main.vb:8268-8291 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8370-8393 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8472-8495 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:7396— codes/Form_Main.vb:7396-7418 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7449-7471 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) codes/Tool_TvS.vb:348— codes/Tool_TvS.vb:348-371 | codes/Tool_TvS.vb:475-498 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `codes/Tool_TvS.vb:348` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1576— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1576-1597 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1356-1377 | codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:344-365 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1378` calls `Write` and `codes/Config_BGB.vb:1598` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 5) codes/Form_Main.vb:8246— codes/Form_Main.vb:8246-8266 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8349-8369 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8621-8641 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9170-9190 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9328-9348 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:255— codes/Config_BGB.vb:255-272 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:598-615 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:256-273 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:739-756 | codes/View_Tree.vb:370-387 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 3) codes/View_BBM.vb:77— codes/View_BBM.vb:77-95 | codes/View_BBM.vb:131-150 | codes/View_BBM.vb:180-199 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:5295— codes/Form_Main.vb:5295-5313 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5786-5805 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 9) codes/Form_Main.vb:5912— codes/Form_Main.vb:5912-5930 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8239-8256 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8342-8359 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8444-8461 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8614-8631 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8777-8794 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9034-9051 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9163-9180 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9321-9338 — all 9 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) codes/Form_Main.vb:8088— codes/Form_Main.vb:8088-8104 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8281-8297 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8383-8399 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8485-8501 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:8502` calls `StreamWriter`, `WriteLine`, `Close` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:8299` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:1352— codes/Form_Main.vb:1352-1368 | codes/Form_Main.vb:1374-1391 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:1605— codes/Config_BGB.vb:1605-1621 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1384-1400 | codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:395-411 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_BGB.vb:1603` calls `Write` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1383` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:481— codes/Form_Main.vb:481-497 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2302-2316 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:230— codes/Config_BGB.vb:230-245 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:573-588 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:228-243 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:231-246 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:714-729 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:210— codes/Config_BGB.vb:210-224 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:553-567 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:211-225 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:694-708 | codes/View_Tree.vb:314-328 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:8710— codes/Form_Main.vb:8710-8723 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8735-8748 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9134-9147 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:8749` calls `get_tree_length`, `Substring` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:9148` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:1843— codes/Form_Main.vb:1843-1857 | codes/Form_Main.vb:1995-2009 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) codes/View_Pie.vb:74— codes/View_Pie.vb:74-87 | codes/View_Pie.vb:287-301 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 7) codes/Config_BGB.vb:207— codes/Config_BGB.vb:207-220 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:550-563 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:202-215 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:208-221 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:691-704 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:83-96 | codes/View_Tree.vb:311-324 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Config_BayArea.vb:216` calls `IsNumeric`, `tree_char` and `codes/Config_BGB.vb:221` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 6) codes/Config_BGB.vb:241— codes/Config_BGB.vb:241-253 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:584-596 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:242-254 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:725-737 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:117-129 | codes/View_Tree.vb:356-368 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 3) codes/View_Dis.vb:298— codes/View_Dis.vb:298-311 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2458-2470 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3164-3177 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:564— codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:564-576 | codes/Tool_Omitted.vb:651-664 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 8) codes/Config_BGB.vb:240— codes/Config_BGB.vb:240-252 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:583-595 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:238-250 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:241-253 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:724-736 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6776-6787 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:116-128 | codes/View_Tree.vb:355-367 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 7) codes/Config_BGB.vb:226— codes/Config_BGB.vb:226-238 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:569-581 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:224-236 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:227-239 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:710-722 | codes/Module_Var.vb:304-316 | codes/View_Tree.vb:341-353 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 4) codes/View_Dis.vb:298— codes/View_Dis.vb:298-310 | codes/View_Pie.vb:224-235 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2458-2469 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3164-3176 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/View_Pie.vb:224` calls `FromImage` and `codes/View_Dis.vb:298` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) codes/Config_BayArea.vb:128— codes/Config_BayArea.vb:128-140 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:12-24 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:612-624 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:744— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:744-755 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:769-780 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:1341-1353 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) codes/Config_Traits.vb:123— codes/Config_Traits.vb:123-133 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7117-7128 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (4–11 lines × 4) codes/Form_Main.vb:754— codes/Form_Main.vb:754-764 | codes/Form_Main.vb:960-970 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2440-2443 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2616-2619 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) codes/Form_Main.vb:6034— codes/Form_Main.vb:6034-6044 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6064-6072 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) Codes/Module_BBM.vb:92— Codes/Module_BBM.vb:92-102 | Codes/Module_BBM.vb:103-112 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 8) codes/Config_BGB.vb:207— codes/Config_BGB.vb:207-215 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:550-558 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:202-210 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:208-216 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:691-699 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6743-6751 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:83-91 | codes/View_Tree.vb:311-319 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 6) codes/View_Tree.vb:1199— codes/View_Tree.vb:1199-1208 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2546-2555 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2576-2584 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2594-2602 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3231-3240 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3622-3631 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:144— codes/Config_BGB.vb:144-153 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:134-143 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:18-27 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:145-154 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:618-627 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:663— codes/Config_BGB.vb:663-671 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:291-299 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:805-813 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6830-6838 | codes/View_Tree.vb:515-523 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) codes/Module_Stat.vb:133— codes/Module_Stat.vb:133-140 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:148-155 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:163-170 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:178-185 | codes/Module_Stat.vb:193-200 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (1–9 lines × 6) codes/Form_Main.vb:6015— codes/Form_Main.vb:6015-6023 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6025-6025 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6045-6053 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6055-6055 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6079-6087 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6089-6089 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:6025` calls `new_list`, `Val`, `p_list` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:6027` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:6036— codes/Form_Main.vb:6036-6044 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6066-6072 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6093-6099 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:188— codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:188-196 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:227-235 | codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:1043-1052 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:196` calls `Replace` and `codes/Tool_Cluster.vb:235` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 6) codes/Config_BGB.vb:270— codes/Config_BGB.vb:270-277 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:613-620 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:252-259 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:271-278 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:754-761 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:146-153 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5–8 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:524— codes/Config_BGB.vb:524-531 | codes/Config_BayArea.vb:181-188 | codes/Config_Chrom.vb:65-69 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:665-672 | codes/View_Tree.vb:293-298 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_BayArea.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 173 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) codes/Config_BGB.vb:192— codes/Config_BGB.vb:192-199 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:193-200 | codes/Tool_Combine.vb:68-75 | codes/View_Tree.vb:295-302 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (2–8 lines × 4) codes/View_Tree.vb:2912— codes/View_Tree.vb:2912-2919 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2920-2921 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2930-2937 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2938-2939 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:2919` calls `draw_pie`, `CInt`, `Val` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:2921` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 13) codes/Form_Main.vb:5911— codes/Form_Main.vb:5911-5916 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8238-8243 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8341-8346 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8443-8448 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8545-8550 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8613-8618 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8661-8666 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8776-8781 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9033-9038 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9110-9115 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9162-9167 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9320-9325 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9535-9540 — all 13 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:9317` calls `CInt` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:9158` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) codes/Config_BGB.vb:109— codes/Config_BGB.vb:109-115 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:288-294 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:107-113 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 4) codes/Form_Main.vb:767— codes/Form_Main.vb:767-773 | codes/Form_Main.vb:973-979 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2443-2445 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2619-2621 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:764` calls `Replace`, `f_t_name` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:2441` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (2–7 lines × 4) codes/Form_Main.vb:783— codes/Form_Main.vb:783-788 | codes/Form_Main.vb:989-995 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2465-2468 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2635-2636 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:780` calls `Replace`, `Item` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:2632` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 3) codes/Form_Main.vb:6026— codes/Form_Main.vb:6026-6032 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6056-6062 | codes/Form_Main.vb:6089-6091 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (4–7 lines × 3) codes/View_Tree.vb:1329— codes/View_Tree.vb:1329-1332 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1350-1356 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1388-1394 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:1332` calls `DrawEllipse`, `Pen` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:1356` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 14) codes/Form_Main.vb:5911— codes/Form_Main.vb:5911-5916 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7647-7652 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8238-8243 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8341-8346 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8443-8448 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8545-8550 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8613-8618 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8661-8666 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8776-8781 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9033-9038 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9110-9115 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9162-9167 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9320-9325 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9535-9540 — all 14 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:9317` calls `CInt` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:9158` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) codes/View_Tree.vb:1210— codes/View_Tree.vb:1210-1215 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1620-1625 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1651-1656 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2563-2568 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3104-3109 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3116-3121 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3653-3658 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3837-3842 — all 8 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:1648` calls `Load_result`, `Get_Info` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:1619` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) codes/View_Tree.vb:3285— codes/View_Tree.vb:3285-3290 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3422-3427 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3680-3685 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3715-3720 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (2–6 lines × 5) codes/Form_Main.vb:776— codes/Form_Main.vb:776-781 | codes/Form_Main.vb:982-987 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2454-2455 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2469-2471 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2629-2634 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `codes/Form_Main.vb:2636` calls `Replace`, `Item` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:2473` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 24) codes/View_Tree.vb:639— codes/View_Tree.vb:639-643 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1199-1204 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1210-1214 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1620-1624 | codes/View_Tree.vb:1651-1655 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2518-2522 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2546-2550 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2563-2567 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2576-2580 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2594-2598 | codes/View_Tree.vb:2648-2652 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3104-3108 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3116-3120 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3133-3137 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3147-3151 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3231-3235 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3243-3247 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3285-3289 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3422-3426 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3622-3626 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3653-3657 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3680-3684 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3715-3719 | codes/View_Tree.vb:3837-3841 — all 24 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/View_Tree.vb:1197` calls `Load_result` and `codes/View_Tree.vb:638` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 15) codes/Config_Traits.vb:425— codes/Config_Traits.vb:425-429 | codes/Form_Main.vb:5911-5915 | codes/Form_Main.vb:7647-7651 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8238-8242 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8341-8345 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8443-8447 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8545-8549 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8613-8617 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8661-8665 | codes/Form_Main.vb:8776-8780 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9033-9037 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9110-9114 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9162-9166 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9320-9324 | codes/Form_Main.vb:9535-9539 — there are 15 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 15 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `codes/Config_Traits.vb:422` calls `LoadLogToolStripMenuItem_Click` and `codes/Form_Main.vb:8237` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 4) codes/Form_Main.vb:770— codes/Form_Main.vb:770-774 | codes/Form_Main.vb:976-980 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2456-2460 | codes/Form_Main.vb:2627-2628 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) codes/View_Dis.vb:370— codes/View_Dis.vb:370-374 | codes/View_Dis.vb:403-407 | codes/View_Dis.vb:420-424 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 5) codes/Config_BGB.vb:50— codes/Config_BGB.vb:50-56 | codes/Config_BGB.vb:1544-1550 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:48-54 | codes/Config_Lagrange.vb:1324-1330 | codes/Config_SDIVA.vb:48-54 — before extracting anything, compare `codes/Config_BGB.vb` and `codes/Config_Lagrange.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 46 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 741 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0 RASP.vbproj:3— RASP.vbproj declares .NET net6.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET 6 LTS, support ended 2024-11-12. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2024-11-12 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
No structured logging — No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
No tests found — No test suite could be collected — no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
Outdated: System.DirectoryServices — System.DirectoryServices 8.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by RASP).
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a160d0-3a63-7776-9d44-efa1e3e0ec36 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 62 · Warnings: 488 · Recommendations: 8 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 23:33 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.