Public report — Property-Agent, published 1 Oct 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_133655651c3d40adbc03bbd6cbd5feea
Filed 1 October 2026, 14:18 UTC
Public
Medium · 37,869 LoC · 2 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (33%)
Findings by grade
64 critical453 serious25 minor40 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
1 October 2026, 14:16 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
530findings with an exact file:lineof 542 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
31/118dimensions across the health lenses37869 LoC · 2 projects — wide & deep
This system is a medium-sized asset with a fragile operational foundation, scoring 44% overall. While the underlying code structure is reasonably sound, the low readiness score indicates significant risk to delivery speed and reliability. The business value tied up here is substantial, yet the cost to rebuild is surprisingly low at approximately €28,000, suggesting the current debt is largely procedural rather than structural.
The primary risk is operational instability. With a readiness score of just 33%, the system lacks the safety nets required for confident deployment. This exposes the business to higher costs in defect resolution and potential outages, as changes are not automatically validated. Without rigorous testing pipelines, every update carries a hidden tax on velocity, likely increasing effort by 6–14% due to the need for manual verification and fear of regression.
A secondary concern is the lack of institutional memory. Maturity scores are weak at 43%, meaning new team members will struggle to understand context or decision history. This knowledge gap slows onboarding and increases the likelihood of repeated mistakes. While the architecture is decent at 72%, the absence of documented decisions and changelogs creates a friction point that compounds over time, making maintenance more expensive than it needs to be.
There are genuine strengths to acknowledge. The code itself is not bloated with boilerplate, and the core logic is relatively clean, which keeps the baseline rebuild cost low. This indicates that the team has not created a mess of unmanageable complexity, but rather a system that is easy to understand but hard to trust.
Focus first on implementing a continuous integration workflow that builds and runs tests on every change. This single action provides the highest leverage, paying for itself by preventing defects and reducing the velocity tax. It is the critical step to transform this fragile asset into a reliable one, securing the business against operational risk.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
496 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-15) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.7× (at 44% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€28,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 33% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Low (×0.9) — library/CLI × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with LayoutController.vb, SearchSmall.ascx.vb, PropertySettings.vb.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 33%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 5.5/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 6–14% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 5.5/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
The top fix pays for itself · Medium · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 0.2–1.1 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~1,144 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 11–200 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 6–14% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 282 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~1,144/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 5.5/10 ⇒ a 6–14% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 200 months.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
11 modules, 5 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 3 modules, marked above the diagonal.
Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Controls uses Ventrian.PropertyAgent. Changing Ventrian.PropertyAgent can break Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Controls, not the reverse.
Position
Above the diagonal — a cycle. Neither module can be changed, tested or deployed independently until one of these dependencies goes.
9→10 Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Mapping depends on Ventrian.PropertyAgentcycle✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Mapping → type in Ventrian.PropertyAgent) reference.
Ventrian.PropertyAgent uses Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Controls. Changing Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Controls can break Ventrian.PropertyAgent, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→9 Ventrian.PropertyAgent depends on Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Mapping✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in Ventrian.PropertyAgent → type in Ventrian.PropertyAgent.Mapping) references.
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
A03:2021 — Injection
28
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
Establish a CI workflow to build and test every push, and maintain a changelog to track release history. Expand the README with getting-started instructions and an architecture overview, while documenting key design decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location. Finally, resolve the most significant orphaned files to ensure codebase knowledge remains current and accurate.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with LayoutController.vb, SearchSmall.ascx.vb, PropertySettings.vb.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 64
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 — 453
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 — 25
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 40
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. 27 of 31 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 31 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, 530 of 542 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.vb) and it is .NET, which this analyzer re-runs through `dotnet test` — but the .NET workspace loaded none of this repository's test projects, so there was no suite to re-run and flakiness couldn't be assessed. The repository commits a project or solution file, so the load had something to read and still produced nothing: the remedy is the restore, the SDK band or the target resolution, not a new runner. Not scored — this is a gap on our side, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. No dependency manifest this pass reads for hygiene (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)) was found in this repository, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D14 License Compliance — 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. License scan produced no result — the tool ran but wrote no JSON report (no package reference resolved); the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (4 contributor(s) across 69 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 88% of the history; the other 3 hold 4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — 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. Subject: 227 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, or an npm dev script. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
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.
PF2 Allocation 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. Those languages have allocation-aware idioms of their own, but this check does not read them yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is careless with allocations.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
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.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, ED5, 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.
77 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was LayoutController.ProcessItem at 686. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being EditLayoutFiles.cmdUpdate_Click at 22 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb (EditLayoutFiles.cmdUpdate_Click at 22). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 72 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 LayoutController.ProcessItem (cyclomatic 686) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with LayoutController.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LayoutController.ProcessRSSItem (cyclomatic 221) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with LayoutController.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 205) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Search.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 141 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 LayoutController.ProcessItem (cognitive 2844) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with LayoutController.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 1349) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Search.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 SearchSmall.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 1160) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with SearchSmall.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes6.2 / 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 50 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with LayoutController.vb (9), SearchSmall.ascx.vb (5), LandingPage.ascx.vb (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 warning-level).
Resolve the 17 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with SearchSmall.ascx.vb, PropertySettings.vb, LandingPage.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
Resolve the 15 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with LayoutController.vb, SearchSmall.ascx.vb, PropertySettings.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 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.
111 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 10 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 63 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with LayoutController.vb (3), EditContactField.ascx.vb, Journal.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with NotificationJob.vb, EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb, EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with EditContactField.ascx.vb, EditReviewField.ascx.vb, EditCustomField.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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 · Coupling6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Coupling in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether 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: 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.
64 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 37869 LoC in the .NET projects (1.6/KLoC) → score 6.9.
EmptyCatchBlock · ×62ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:318
TodoComment · ×2Entities/AgentController.vb:165
What to do
Resolve the 62 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SearchSmall.ascx.vb (10), EditProperty.ascx.vb (9), LayoutController.vb (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (62 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AgentController.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the 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 single README is a one-line description plus a link to an external wiki for Property Agent (a DotNetNuke module), with no installation, usage, or contribution guidance. It does not state what the directory contains and gives no examples of how to run it.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×3README.md
What to do
Resolve the 3 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
80 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % 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.
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 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 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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).
30 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 16 medium, 13 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 12 file(s) — `Templates/Agri/Listing.Alternate.html` (line 16), `Templates/Agri/Listing.Item.html` (line 16), `Templates/Cars/Featured.Footer.html` (lines 3–8), `Templates/Conferences/Featured.Footer.html` (line 1), `REDACTED` (line 1, line 35), … (+7 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 16 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (10), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (7), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
89 of 89 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb. Counted over 89 of the 157 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Most significant orphaned file · ×3Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with LayoutController.vb, SearchSmall.ascx.vb, PropertySettings.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
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.
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.
~37.9k production LoC (179 types) across 2 project(s) / 10 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 · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.
Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.
Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.
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.
The root README is 32 words, against a bar of 120. Of the three newcomer-critical sections this check looks for by heading, it found no a build/run or getting-started section, no a testing section, no an architecture or project-map section. Sections are matched on HEADING text only, so material written under a heading this check does not recognise — or with no heading at all — is not seen and this row may understate what the document covers.
What to do
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the 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 mixed at the repository root with everything else the repository holds, so nothing marks which files are 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.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — markup this repository SHIPS is scored for third-party script integrity whether or not the repository serves it itself, since a page handed to a consumer runs in that consumer’s origin. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.
`https://www.plaxo.com/ab_chooser/abc_comm.jsdyn` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 5 such include(s) across the repository's markup. — Includes/plaxo_cb.html:1
What to do
Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.
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.
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 — 82 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 user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~327 lines of test source are present (.vb) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .NET workspace loaded no .vb test project
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no supported dependency manifest was read
D14 License Compliance — Licence collector did not produce a result
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 37k LoC across two projects the codebase is small and single-purpose despite the name, so explicit boundaries are not needed. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a 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).
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — 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).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.vb) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (41 event handler(s))
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
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 — Allocation awareness was not assessed: this repository holds Visual Basic, whose allocation-aware idioms this check does not model yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
EmptyCatchBlock ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:318— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:326— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock CommentForm.ascx.vb:377— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock CommentForm.ascx.vb:412— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock CommentForm.ascx.vb:446— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock CommentForm.ascx.vb:631— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Controls/SWFUploader.ashx.vb:320— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:91— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditPermissions.ascx.vb:85— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:738— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:761— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:796— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:827— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:883— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:1710— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:1721— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:2158— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditProperty.ascx.vb:2162— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:240— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Entities/AgentController.vb:205— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Entities/AgentController.vb:243— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Entities/AgentController.vb:248— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Entities/AgentController.vb:256— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Entities/AgentController.vb:260— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Entities/AgentController.vb:266— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
MethodTooLong: LayoutController.ProcessItem Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:3429— MethodTooLong — ProcessItem runs 2492 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2392 over it, 24.92× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: LayoutController.ProcessRSSItem Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2422— MethodTooLong — ProcessRSSItem runs 775 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 675 over it, 7.75× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound Search.ascx.vb:370— MethodTooLong — rptDetails_OnItemDataBound runs 775 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 675 over it, 7.75× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SearchSmall.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1792— MethodTooLong — rptDetails_OnItemDataBound runs 721 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 621 over it, 7.21× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: LandingPage.RenderCustomField LandingPage.ascx.vb:910— MethodTooLong — RenderCustomField runs 621 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 521 over it, 6.21× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SearchSmall.RenderCustomField SearchSmall.ascx.vb:707— MethodTooLong — RenderCustomField runs 589 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 489 over it, 5.89× 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: EditProperty.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound EditProperty.ascx.vb:1298— MethodTooLong — rptDetails_OnItemDataBound runs 549 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 449 over it, 5.49× 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: EditProperty.Update EditProperty.ascx.vb:575— MethodTooLong — Update runs 404 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 304 over it, 4.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: LayoutController.ProcessOptionItem Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:6524— MethodTooLong — ProcessOptionItem runs 401 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 301 over it, 4.01× 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: _Default.ReadQueryString Default.ascx.vb:31— MethodTooLong — ReadQueryString runs 332 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 232 over it, 3.32× 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: EditLayoutSettings.BindSettings EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:374— MethodTooLong — BindSettings runs 328 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 228 over it, 3.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ViewType.ProcessHeaderFooter ViewType.ascx.vb:725— MethodTooLong — ProcessHeaderFooter runs 301 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 201 over it, 3.01× 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: LandingPage.ProcessSearch LandingPage.ascx.vb:488— MethodTooLong — ProcessSearch runs 297 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 197 over it, 2.97× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SearchSmall.ProcessSearch SearchSmall.ascx.vb:353— MethodTooLong — ProcessSearch runs 275 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 175 over it, 2.75× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EditLayoutSettings.cmdUpdate_Click EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:824— MethodTooLong — cmdUpdate_Click runs 268 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 168 over it, 2.68× 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: LayoutController.ProcessComment Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1482— MethodTooLong — ProcessComment runs 263 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 163 over it, 2.63× 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: SearchSmall.Search_Click SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1502— MethodTooLong — Search_Click runs 247 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 147 over it, 2.47× 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: SearchSmall.cmdSearch_Click SearchSmall.ascx.vb:2714— MethodTooLong — cmdSearch_Click runs 246 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 146 over it, 2.46× 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: Search.cmdSearch_Click Search.ascx.vb:1292— MethodTooLong — cmdSearch_Click runs 237 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 137 over it, 2.37× 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: LandingPage.Search_Click LandingPage.ascx.vb:1718— MethodTooLong — Search_Click 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: LayoutController.ProcessExportItem Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1836— MethodTooLong — ProcessExportItem runs 231 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 131 over it, 2.31× 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.
MethodTooLong: LayoutController.GetFieldValue Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:466— MethodTooLong — GetFieldValue runs 228 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 2.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EditLayoutFiles.BindDetails EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:59— MethodTooLong — BindDetails runs 227 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 127 over it, 2.27× 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: ViewType.BindProperty ViewType.ascx.vb:422— MethodTooLong — BindProperty runs 226 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 126 over it, 2.26× 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: EditPermissions.cmdUpdate_Click EditPermissions.ascx.vb:151— MethodTooLong — cmdUpdate_Click runs 224 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 124 over it, 2.24× 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.
ClassTooLong: SearchSmall SearchSmall.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 2571 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 19 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 2171 over it, 6.43× 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: PropertySettings Entities/Property/PropertySettings.vb— ClassTooLong — 1933 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 1 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 1533 over it, 4.83× 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: LandingPage LandingPage.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 1731 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 25 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 1331 over it, 4.33× 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: EditProperty EditProperty.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 1677 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 27 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 1277 over it, 4.19× 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: Search Search.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 1269 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 13 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 869 over it, 3.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ViewType ViewType.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 1109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 24 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 709 over it, 2.77× 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: Latest Latest.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 680 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 17 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 280 over it, 1.70× 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: EditCustomField EditCustomField.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 658 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 24 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 258 over it, 1.65× 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: Constants Entities/Constants.vb— ClassTooLong — 642 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 0 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 242 over it, 1.61× 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: LatestOptions LatestOptions.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 588 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 24 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 188 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ContactForm ContactForm.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 512 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 6 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 112 over it, 1.28× 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: CommentForm CommentForm.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 509 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 6 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 109 over it, 1.27× 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: UploadPhotoHTML5 Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 496 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 10 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 96 over it, 1.24× 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: EditPermissions EditPermissions.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 457 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 12 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 57 over it, 1.14× 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: PropertyInfo Entities/Property/PropertyInfo.vb— ClassTooLong — 442 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 7 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 42 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: _Default Default.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 437 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 5 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.09× 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: EditProperties EditProperties.ascx.vb— ClassTooLong — 422 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 20 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.
FileTooLong: Layout/LayoutController.vb Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb— FileTooLong — 6034 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 5534 over it, 12.07× 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: ./SearchSmall.ascx.vb SearchSmall.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 2579 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2079 over it, 5.16× 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: Property/PropertySettings.vb Entities/Property/PropertySettings.vb— FileTooLong — 1939 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1439 over it, 3.88× 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: ./LandingPage.ascx.vb LandingPage.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 1741 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1241 over it, 3.48× 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: ./EditProperty.ascx.vb EditProperty.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 1692 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1192 over it, 3.38× 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: ./Search.ascx.vb Search.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 1277 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 777 over it, 2.55× 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: ./ViewType.ascx.vb ViewType.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 1118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 618 over it, 2.24× 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: ./EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 999 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 499 over it, 2.00× 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: ./Latest.ascx.vb Latest.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 689 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 189 over it, 1.38× 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: ./EditCustomField.ascx.vb EditCustomField.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 665 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 165 over it, 1.33× 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: Entities/Constants.vb Entities/Constants.vb— FileTooLong — 645 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 145 over it, 1.29× 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: ./LatestOptions.ascx.vb LatestOptions.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 598 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 98 over it, 1.20× 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: ./CommentForm.ascx.vb CommentForm.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 518 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.04× 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: ./ContactForm.ascx.vb ContactForm.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 518 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.04× 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: Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb— FileTooLong — 515 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) EditContactField.ascx.vb:253— EditContactField.ascx.vb:253-265 | EditReviewField.ascx.vb:221-233 — before extracting anything, compare `EditContactField.ascx.vb` and `EditReviewField.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Entities/Social/Journal.vb:15— Entities/Social/Journal.vb:15-27 | Entities/Social/Journal.vb:47-59 — 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) ImageHandler.ashx.vb:29— ImageHandler.ashx.vb:29-41 | ImageHandlerExt.ashx.vb:80-92 — 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 (13 lines × 2) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:103— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:103-115 | Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:139-151 — 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) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:121— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:121-133 | Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:157-169 — 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) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:334— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:334-346 | ViewType.ascx.vb:147-159 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:147— EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:147-159 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:353-365 — before extracting anything, compare `EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb` and `EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:117— Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:117-123 | Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:160-166 — before extracting anything, compare `Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb` and `Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:49— EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:49-55 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:49-55 — before extracting anything, compare `EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb` and `EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:897— EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:897-903 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:743-749 — 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. 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, `EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:893` calls `UpdateModuleSetting`, `ToString` and `LatestOptions.ascx.vb:741` 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) EditProperties.ascx.vb:294— EditProperties.ascx.vb:294-300 | SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:304-310 — 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 (7 lines × 2) ViewType.ascx.vb:604— ViewType.ascx.vb:604-610 | ViewType.ascx.vb:645-651 — 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) EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:220— EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:220-226 | ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:116-122 — before extracting anything, compare `EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb` and `ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the 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) ViewProperty.ascx.vb:387— ViewProperty.ascx.vb:387-393 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1158-1164 — 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) EditContactField.ascx.vb:76— EditContactField.ascx.vb:76-86 | EditContactFields.ascx.vb:52-62 — 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) EditReviewField.ascx.vb:76— EditReviewField.ascx.vb:76-86 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:52-62 — 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) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:36— EditCustomField.ascx.vb:36-46 | EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:52-62 — 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) EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:213— EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:213-223 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:279-289 — 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) EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:38— EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:38-48 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:56-66 — 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) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1763— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1763-1773 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1542-1552 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 (6 lines × 2) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:55— Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:55-61 | Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:55-60 — before extracting anything, compare `Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb` and `Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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 × 2) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:263— EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:263-268 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:147-152 — 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) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:997— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:997-1002 | Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1008-1013 — 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) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:659— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:659-664 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:175-180 — before extracting anything, compare `LatestOptions.ascx.vb` and `TypesOptions.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 73 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 (6 lines × 2) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:791— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:791-796 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:264-269 — before extracting anything, compare `LatestOptions.ascx.vb` and `TypesOptions.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 73 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, `LatestOptions.ascx.vb:797` calls `ToInt32` and `TypesOptions.ascx.vb:271` 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 × 2) ViewType.ascx.vb:614— ViewType.ascx.vb:614-619 | ViewType.ascx.vb:654-659 — 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) Controls/SWFUploader.ashx.vb:335— Controls/SWFUploader.ashx.vb:335-343 | Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb:402-410 — 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) EditProperties.ascx.vb:122— EditProperties.ascx.vb:122-130 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:119-127 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) EditProperties.ascx.vb:568— EditProperties.ascx.vb:568-576 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:2173-2181 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) EditProperty.ascx.vb:791— EditProperty.ascx.vb:791-800 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:823-831 — 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 `EditProperty.ascx.vb:791` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:197— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:197-205 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:73-81 — before extracting anything, compare `LatestOptions.ascx.vb` and `TypesOptions.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 73 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) ContactForm.ascx.vb:335— ContactForm.ascx.vb:335-350 | SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:208-223 — before extracting anything, compare `ContactForm.ascx.vb` and `SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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 (16 lines × 2) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:310— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:310-325 | ViewType.ascx.vb:123-138 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Search.ascx.vb:85— Search.ascx.vb:85-100 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:144-160 — before extracting anything, compare `Search.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 127 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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, `Search.ascx.vb:84` calls `List`, `ListAll`, `NullString` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb:143` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:35— Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:35-50 | Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:35-50 — before extracting anything, compare `Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb` and `Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) EditContactFields.ascx.vb:35— EditContactFields.ascx.vb:35-46 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:35-46 — before extracting anything, compare `EditContactFields.ascx.vb` and `EditReviewFields.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 88 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:256— EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:256-267 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:300-311 — 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) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:946— EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:946-958 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:760-771 — 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 (12 lines × 2) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:809— EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:809-820 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:124-135 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Controls/EditPropertyPhotos.ascx.vb:238— Controls/EditPropertyPhotos.ascx.vb:238-246 | Controls/EditPropertyPhotos.ascx.vb:262-269 — 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) LandingPage.ascx.vb:2036— LandingPage.ascx.vb:2036-2043 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:3023-3030 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 (8 lines × 2) Search.ascx.vb:326— Search.ascx.vb:326-333 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:63-70 — before extracting anything, compare `Search.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 127 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) ShortListForm.ascx.vb:21— ShortListForm.ascx.vb:21-28 | SubscribeForm.ascx.vb:19-26 — 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.
TooManyMethods: SqlDataProvider Providers/DataProviders/SqlDataProvider/SqlDataProvider.vb— TooManyMethods — 285 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: LayoutController Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb— TooManyMethods — 6010 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 56 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 26 over it, 1.87× 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: EditLayoutSettings EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb— TooManyMethods — 991 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× 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) · ×3
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:61— EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:61-125 | EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:178-219 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:61-331 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:384-500 — 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) EditProperties.ascx.vb:216— EditProperties.ascx.vb:216-244 | Latest.ascx.vb:793-802 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:173-182 | ViewType.ascx.vb:394-418 — 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) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:560— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:560-683 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:791-801 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:138-199 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:264-273 — 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 (25 lines × 2) EditExpiryNotifications.ascx.vb:87— EditExpiryNotifications.ascx.vb:87-111 | EditPropertyNotifications.ascx.vb:80-104 — 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 (25 lines × 2) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:766— EditCustomField.ascx.vb:766-790 | EditCustomField.ascx.vb:811-835 — 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) Latest.ascx.vb:861— Latest.ascx.vb:861-885 | Latest.ascx.vb:892-916 — 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 × 3) Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:144— Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:144-153 | Latest.ascx.vb:196-205 | ViewProperty.ascx.vb:409-418 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) EditContactField.ascx.vb:254— EditContactField.ascx.vb:254-263 | EditCustomField.ascx.vb:590-599 | EditReviewField.ascx.vb:222-231 — before extracting anything, compare `EditContactField.ascx.vb` and `EditReviewField.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) EditProperties.ascx.vb:216— EditProperties.ascx.vb:216-225 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:173-182 | ViewType.ascx.vb:394-403 — 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 (10 lines × 2) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:177— Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:177-186 | Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:211-220 — before extracting anything, compare `Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb` and `Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:349— EditCustomField.ascx.vb:349-358 | EditReviewField.ascx.vb:137-146 — before extracting anything, compare `EditCustomField.ascx.vb` and `EditReviewField.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:157— EditPermissions.ascx.vb:157-166 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:167-177 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:689— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:689-697 | SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:282-290 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:205-213 — before extracting anything, compare `LatestOptions.ascx.vb` and `TypesOptions.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 73 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Export.ascx.vb:36— Export.ascx.vb:36-44 | Rss.ascx.vb:34-42 | Xml.ascx.vb:34-42 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Rss.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 110 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Export.ascx.vb:50— Export.ascx.vb:50-58 | Rss.ascx.vb:48-56 | Xml.ascx.vb:48-56 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Rss.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 110 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) EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:61— EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:61-65 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:61-65 — before extracting anything, compare `EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb` and `EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:661— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:661-665 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:793-797 — 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) Entities/Property/PropertySettings.vb:480— Entities/Property/PropertySettings.vb:480-484 | Entities/Property/PropertySettingsTypes.vb:154-158 — 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.
TodoComment Entities/AgentController.vb:165— 'TODO: optimize? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Entities/AgentController.vb:169— 'TODO: understand why I have to tho this, for "Membership.Approved" return the REAL value — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) EditContactFields.ascx.vb:224— EditContactFields.ascx.vb:224-249 | EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:224-292 | EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:1148-1179 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:297-336 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:224-249 — 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) LandingPage.ascx.vb:61— LandingPage.ascx.vb:61-87 | Latest.ascx.vb:861-886 | Latest.ascx.vb:892-917 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1276-1325 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1331-1380 — 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 (43 lines × 2) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:774— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:774-816 | Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:826-868 — 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 (43 lines × 2) Entities/PropertyAgentBase.vb:98— Entities/PropertyAgentBase.vb:98-140 | Latest.ascx.vb:109-151 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:203— EditPermissions.ascx.vb:203-216 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:221-234 — 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) Entities/PropertyAgentBase.vb:79— Entities/PropertyAgentBase.vb:79-92 | Latest.ascx.vb:90-103 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:444— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:444-456 | Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7219-7231 | Entities/WebControls/PagingControl.vb:282-294 — 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 lines × 3) LandingPage.ascx.vb:67— LandingPage.ascx.vb:67-79 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1299-1311 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1354-1366 — 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. 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 × 3) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:435— EditPermissions.ascx.vb:435-442 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:525-532 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:580-587 — 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) EditProperty.ascx.vb:733— EditProperty.ascx.vb:733-740 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:790-798 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:822-829 — 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 (7 lines × 3) Controls/UploadPhotoStandard.ascx.vb:39— Controls/UploadPhotoStandard.ascx.vb:39-45 | PdfRender.ascx.vb:110-116 | ViewProperty.ascx.vb:59-65 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) EditContactFields.ascx.vb:23— EditContactFields.ascx.vb:23-29 | EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:23-29 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:23-29 — before extracting anything, compare `EditContactFields.ascx.vb` and `EditCustomFields.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 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.
Appears unstructured (no recognised architecture) — ~37.9k production LoC (179 types) across 2 project(s) / 10 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.
LayoutController.ProcessItem (cyclomatic 686) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:3429— LayoutController.ProcessItem has cyclomatic complexity 686 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
LayoutController.ProcessRSSItem (cyclomatic 221) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2422— LayoutController.ProcessRSSItem has cyclomatic complexity 221 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 205) Search.ascx.vb:370— Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cyclomatic complexity 205 (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.
SearchSmall.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 188) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1792— SearchSmall.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cyclomatic complexity 188 (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.
LandingPage.RenderCustomField (cyclomatic 160) LandingPage.ascx.vb:910— LandingPage.RenderCustomField has cyclomatic complexity 160 (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.
SearchSmall.RenderCustomField (cyclomatic 152) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:707— SearchSmall.RenderCustomField has cyclomatic complexity 152 (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.
EditProperty.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 142) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1298— EditProperty.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cyclomatic complexity 142 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessOptionItem (cyclomatic 133) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:6524— LayoutController.ProcessOptionItem has cyclomatic complexity 133 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
_Default.ReadQueryString (cyclomatic 105) Default.ascx.vb:31— _Default.ReadQueryString has cyclomatic complexity 105 (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.
EditProperty.Update (cyclomatic 102) EditProperty.ascx.vb:575— EditProperty.Update has cyclomatic complexity 102 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
ViewType.ProcessHeaderFooter (cyclomatic 87) ViewType.ascx.vb:725— ViewType.ProcessHeaderFooter has cyclomatic complexity 87 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessComment (cyclomatic 82) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1482— LayoutController.ProcessComment has cyclomatic complexity 82 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
LandingPage.ProcessSearch (cyclomatic 72) LandingPage.ascx.vb:488— LandingPage.ProcessSearch has cyclomatic complexity 72 (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.
SearchSmall.Search_Click (cyclomatic 70) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1502— SearchSmall.Search_Click has cyclomatic complexity 70 (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.
SearchSmall.cmdSearch_Click (cyclomatic 69) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:2714— SearchSmall.cmdSearch_Click has cyclomatic complexity 69 (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.
Search.cmdSearch_Click (cyclomatic 68) Search.ascx.vb:1292— Search.cmdSearch_Click has cyclomatic complexity 68 (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.
LandingPage.Search_Click (cyclomatic 67) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1718— LandingPage.Search_Click has cyclomatic complexity 67 (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.
LayoutController.GetFieldValue (cyclomatic 66) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:466— LayoutController.GetFieldValue has cyclomatic complexity 66 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
SearchSmall.ProcessSearch (cyclomatic 65) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:353— SearchSmall.ProcessSearch has cyclomatic complexity 65 (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.
EditLayoutSettings.BindSettings (cyclomatic 64) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:374— EditLayoutSettings.BindSettings 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.
Latest.ProcessEmpty (cyclomatic 58) Latest.ascx.vb:489— Latest.ProcessEmpty has cyclomatic complexity 58 (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.
CommentForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cyclomatic 55) CommentForm.ascx.vb:244— CommentForm.cmdSubmit_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.
LayoutController.ProcessExportItem (cyclomatic 53) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1836— LayoutController.ProcessExportItem has cyclomatic complexity 53 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
EditPermissions.cmdUpdate_Click (cyclomatic 48) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:151— EditPermissions.cmdUpdate_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.
LayoutController.ProcessType (cyclomatic 48) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7237— LayoutController.ProcessType 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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
EditProperty.BindDetails (cyclomatic 45) EditProperty.ascx.vb:140— EditProperty.BindDetails 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.
ViewType.BindProperty (cyclomatic 45) ViewType.ascx.vb:422— ViewType.BindProperty 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.
ChangeTemplate.InitializeTemplate (cyclomatic 44) ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:74— ChangeTemplate.InitializeTemplate 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.
ContactForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cyclomatic 44) ContactForm.ascx.vb:237— ContactForm.cmdSubmit_Click 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.
NotificationJob.FormatTokens (cyclomatic 40) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:175— NotificationJob.FormatTokens 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.
ReminderJob.FormatTokens (cyclomatic 40) Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:209— ReminderJob.FormatTokens 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.
Latest.BindLatest (cyclomatic 40) Latest.ascx.vb:209— Latest.BindLatest 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.
jquery.lightbox-0.4.$.fn.lightBox (cyclomatic 39) JS/Lightbox/jquery.lightbox-0.4.js:21— jquery.lightbox-0.4.$.fn.lightBox has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
LayoutController.GetLayout (cyclomatic 38) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1162— LayoutController.GetLayout has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
ViewProperty.BindProperty (cyclomatic 38) ViewProperty.ascx.vb:152— ViewProperty.BindProperty has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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.
ContactForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 36) ContactForm.ascx.vb:423— ContactForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound 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.
LayoutController.ProcessReview (cyclomatic 36) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2116— LayoutController.ProcessReview 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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
LayoutController.ProcessPhoto (cyclomatic 31) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7010— LayoutController.ProcessPhoto has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
CurrencyConverter.ConvertCurrency (cyclomatic 30) CurrencyConverter.ascx.vb:42— CurrencyConverter.ConvertCurrency 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.
EditProperty.Page_Load (cyclomatic 30) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1192— EditProperty.Page_Load 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.
ViewType.BindSortBy (cyclomatic 30) ViewType.ascx.vb:261— ViewType.BindSortBy 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.
SendToFriendForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cyclomatic 29) SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:144— SendToFriendForm.cmdSubmit_Click 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.
ReviewForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cyclomatic 28) ReviewForm.ascx.vb:110— ReviewForm.cmdSubmit_Click 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.
EditLayoutSettings.cmdUpdate_Click (cyclomatic 27) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:824— EditLayoutSettings.cmdUpdate_Click 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.
Latest.BindSortBy (cyclomatic 27) Latest.ascx.vb:676— Latest.BindSortBy 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.
SearchSmall.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged (cyclomatic 27) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:3144— SearchSmall.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged 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.
ReminderJob.SendReminders (cyclomatic 26) Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:53— ReminderJob.SendReminders 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.
EditCustomField.BindCustomField (cyclomatic 26) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:334— EditCustomField.BindCustomField 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.
PropertyController.GetModifiedSearchDocuments (cyclomatic 25) Entities/Property/PropertyController.vb:221— PropertyController.GetModifiedSearchDocuments 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.
LatestOptions.LoadSettings (cyclomatic 25) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:558— LatestOptions.LoadSettings 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.
LandingPage.ProcessHeaderFooter (cyclomatic 24) LandingPage.ascx.vb:366— LandingPage.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
UploadPhotoStandard.cmdUploadPhoto_Click (cyclomatic 23) Controls/UploadPhotoStandard.ascx.vb:66— UploadPhotoStandard.cmdUploadPhoto_Click 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.
PdfRender.ProcessHeaderFooter (cyclomatic 22) PdfRender.ascx.vb:40— PdfRender.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
ReviewForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 22) ReviewForm.ascx.vb:272— ReviewForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound 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.
EditCustomField.cmdUpdate_Click (cyclomatic 22) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:531— EditCustomField.cmdUpdate_Click 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.
LayoutController.ProcessMessage (cyclomatic 22) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7495— LayoutController.ProcessMessage 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
LandingPage.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged (cyclomatic 22) LandingPage.ascx.vb:2065— LandingPage.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged 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.
SearchSmall.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged (cyclomatic 22) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:3056— SearchSmall.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged 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.
ViewProperty.ProcessHeaderFooter (cyclomatic 22) ViewProperty.ascx.vb:84— ViewProperty.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
CommentForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cyclomatic 20) CommentForm.ascx.vb:511— CommentForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound 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.
_Default.ModuleActions.Get (cyclomatic 20) Default.ascx.vb:490— _Default.ModuleActions.Get 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.
LandingPage.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged (cyclomatic 20) LandingPage.ascx.vb:2153— LandingPage.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged 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.
SWFUploader.ProcessRequest (cyclomatic 19) Controls/SWFUploader.ashx.vb:150— SWFUploader.ProcessRequest 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.
LayoutController.GetTypeLink (cyclomatic 19) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7137— LayoutController.GetTypeLink 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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
CommentForm.CommentFormFields.Get (cyclomatic 18) CommentForm.ascx.vb:33— CommentForm.CommentFormFields.Get 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.
SearchSmall.BindSearch (cyclomatic 18) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:74— SearchSmall.BindSearch 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.
ViewContactLog.BindContactLog (cyclomatic 17) ViewContactLog.ascx.vb:16— ViewContactLog.BindContactLog 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.
LayoutController.GetPropertyLink (cyclomatic 17) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:376— LayoutController.GetPropertyLink 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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
LayoutController.ProcessRSSHeader (cyclomatic 17) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2335— LayoutController.ProcessRSSHeader 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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
ViewType.GetAdditionalParams (cyclomatic 17) ViewType.ascx.vb:1072— ViewType.GetAdditionalParams 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.
EditPropertyPhotos.dlPhotos_OnItemCommand (cyclomatic 16) Controls/EditPropertyPhotos.ascx.vb:212— EditPropertyPhotos.dlPhotos_OnItemCommand 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.
EditProperty.Page_Initialization (cyclomatic 16) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1122— EditProperty.Page_Initialization 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.
LayoutController.LoadStyleSheet (cyclomatic 16) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1358— LayoutController.LoadStyleSheet 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: Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb holds 15 of the 77 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 1260 of the 3272 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (SearchSmall.ascx.vb at 491). 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.
Latest.ReadQueryStringTotal (cyclomatic 16) Latest.ascx.vb:426— Latest.ReadQueryStringTotal 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.
Search.BindDetails (cyclomatic 16) Search.ascx.vb:49— Search.BindDetails 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.
SearchSmallOptions.LoadSettings (cyclomatic 16) SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:201— SearchSmallOptions.LoadSettings 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.
ViewType.ReadQueryString (cyclomatic 16) ViewType.ascx.vb:166— ViewType.ReadQueryString 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.
LayoutController.ProcessItem (cognitive 2844) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:3429— LayoutController.ProcessItem has cognitive complexity 2844 (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.
Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 1349) Search.ascx.vb:370— Search.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 1349 (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.
SearchSmall.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 1160) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1792— SearchSmall.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 1160 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessRSSItem (cognitive 869) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2422— LayoutController.ProcessRSSItem has cognitive complexity 869 (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.
EditProperty.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 832) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1298— EditProperty.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 832 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessOptionItem (cognitive 676) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:6524— LayoutController.ProcessOptionItem has cognitive complexity 676 (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.
LandingPage.RenderCustomField (cognitive 538) LandingPage.ascx.vb:910— LandingPage.RenderCustomField has cognitive complexity 538 (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.
SearchSmall.RenderCustomField (cognitive 495) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:707— SearchSmall.RenderCustomField has cognitive complexity 495 (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.
Search.cmdSearch_Click (cognitive 454) Search.ascx.vb:1292— Search.cmdSearch_Click has cognitive complexity 454 (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.
EditProperty.Update (cognitive 429) EditProperty.ascx.vb:575— EditProperty.Update has cognitive complexity 429 (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.
SearchSmall.cmdSearch_Click (cognitive 424) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:2714— SearchSmall.cmdSearch_Click has cognitive complexity 424 (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.
SearchSmall.Search_Click (cognitive 387) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1502— SearchSmall.Search_Click has cognitive complexity 387 (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.
LandingPage.Search_Click (cognitive 379) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1718— LandingPage.Search_Click has cognitive complexity 379 (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.
LandingPage.ProcessSearch (cognitive 358) LandingPage.ascx.vb:488— LandingPage.ProcessSearch has cognitive complexity 358 (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.
SearchSmall.ProcessSearch (cognitive 320) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:353— SearchSmall.ProcessSearch has cognitive complexity 320 (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.
ViewType.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 284) ViewType.ascx.vb:725— ViewType.ProcessHeaderFooter has cognitive complexity 284 (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.
_Default.ReadQueryString (cognitive 270) Default.ascx.vb:31— _Default.ReadQueryString has cognitive complexity 270 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessComment (cognitive 266) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1482— LayoutController.ProcessComment has cognitive complexity 266 (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.
CommentForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cognitive 191) CommentForm.ascx.vb:244— CommentForm.cmdSubmit_Click has cognitive complexity 191 (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.
ContactForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cognitive 184) ContactForm.ascx.vb:237— ContactForm.cmdSubmit_Click has cognitive complexity 184 (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.
EditPermissions.cmdUpdate_Click (cognitive 184) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:151— EditPermissions.cmdUpdate_Click has cognitive complexity 184 (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.
PropertyController.GetModifiedSearchDocuments (cognitive 176) Entities/Property/PropertyController.vb:221— PropertyController.GetModifiedSearchDocuments has cognitive complexity 176 (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.
SearchSmall.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 165) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:3144— SearchSmall.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged has cognitive complexity 165 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessReview (cognitive 158) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2116— LayoutController.ProcessReview has cognitive complexity 158 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessType (cognitive 157) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7237— LayoutController.ProcessType has cognitive complexity 157 (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.
ViewType.BindSortBy (cognitive 141) ViewType.ascx.vb:261— ViewType.BindSortBy has cognitive complexity 141 (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.
LandingPage.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 139) LandingPage.ascx.vb:2065— LandingPage.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged has cognitive complexity 139 (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.
SearchSmall.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 139) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:3056— SearchSmall.drpPropertyType_SelectedIndexChanged has cognitive complexity 139 (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.
NotificationJob.FormatTokens (cognitive 137) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:175— NotificationJob.FormatTokens 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.
ReminderJob.FormatTokens (cognitive 137) Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:209— ReminderJob.FormatTokens 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.
ContactForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 134) ContactForm.ascx.vb:423— ContactForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 134 (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.
LayoutController.GetFieldValue (cognitive 128) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:466— LayoutController.GetFieldValue has cognitive complexity 128 (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.
Latest.BindSortBy (cognitive 125) Latest.ascx.vb:676— Latest.BindSortBy has cognitive complexity 125 (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.
LandingPage.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 124) LandingPage.ascx.vb:2153— LandingPage.drpLinked_SelectedIndexChanged has cognitive complexity 124 (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.
ReviewForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cognitive 120) ReviewForm.ascx.vb:110— ReviewForm.cmdSubmit_Click 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.
SendToFriendForm.cmdSubmit_Click (cognitive 112) SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:144— SendToFriendForm.cmdSubmit_Click 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.
EditLayoutSettings.BindSettings (cognitive 111) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:374— EditLayoutSettings.BindSettings has cognitive complexity 111 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessExportItem (cognitive 109) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1836— LayoutController.ProcessExportItem 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.
ViewType.BindProperty (cognitive 107) ViewType.ascx.vb:422— ViewType.BindProperty 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.
EditProperty.BindDetails (cognitive 105) EditProperty.ascx.vb:140— EditProperty.BindDetails has cognitive complexity 105 (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.
Latest.BindLatest (cognitive 105) Latest.ascx.vb:209— Latest.BindLatest has cognitive complexity 105 (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.
LandingPage.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 95) LandingPage.ascx.vb:366— LandingPage.ProcessHeaderFooter has cognitive complexity 95 (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.
Latest.ProcessEmpty (cognitive 92) Latest.ascx.vb:489— Latest.ProcessEmpty has cognitive complexity 92 (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.
ViewProperty.BindProperty (cognitive 91) ViewProperty.ascx.vb:152— ViewProperty.BindProperty has cognitive complexity 91 (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.
EditCustomField.BindCustomField (cognitive 85) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:334— EditCustomField.BindCustomField has cognitive complexity 85 (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.
LayoutController.ProcessMessage (cognitive 80) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7495— LayoutController.ProcessMessage 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.
ChangeTemplate.InitializeTemplate (cognitive 79) ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:74— ChangeTemplate.InitializeTemplate has cognitive complexity 79 (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.
EditLayoutSettings.cmdUpdate_Click (cognitive 76) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:824— EditLayoutSettings.cmdUpdate_Click has cognitive complexity 76 (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.
ApproveReviews.cmdApprove_Click (cognitive 70) ApproveReviews.ascx.vb:168— ApproveReviews.cmdApprove_Click has cognitive complexity 70 (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.
EditCustomField.cmdUpdate_Click (cognitive 68) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:531— EditCustomField.cmdUpdate_Click 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.
PdfRender.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 66) PdfRender.ascx.vb:40— PdfRender.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
ViewProperty.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 66) ViewProperty.ascx.vb:84— ViewProperty.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
ReviewForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 61) ReviewForm.ascx.vb:272— ReviewForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound 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.
LayoutController.LoadStyleSheet (cognitive 59) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1358— LayoutController.LoadStyleSheet has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LatestOptions.LoadSettings (cognitive 59) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:558— LatestOptions.LoadSettings has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LatestOptions.BindModules (cognitive 55) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:64— LatestOptions.BindModules 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.
SearchSmallOptions.BindModules (cognitive 55) SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:36— SearchSmallOptions.BindModules 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.
TypesOptions.BindModules (cognitive 55) TypesOptions.ascx.vb:85— TypesOptions.BindModules 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.
_Default.ModuleActions.Get (cognitive 53) Default.ascx.vb:490— _Default.ModuleActions.Get has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ViewContactLog.BindContactLog (cognitive 52) ViewContactLog.ascx.vb:16— ViewContactLog.BindContactLog 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.
CommentForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 51) CommentForm.ascx.vb:511— CommentForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound 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.
SearchSmall.BindSearch (cognitive 51) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:74— SearchSmall.BindSearch 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.
jquery.lightbox-0.4.$.fn.lightBox (cognitive 51) JS/Lightbox/jquery.lightbox-0.4.js:21— jquery.lightbox-0.4.$.fn.lightBox has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 35 (40 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
EditProperty.Page_Load (cognitive 48) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1192— EditProperty.Page_Load 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.
UploadPhotoStandard.cmdUploadPhoto_Click (cognitive 47) Controls/UploadPhotoStandard.ascx.vb:66— UploadPhotoStandard.cmdUploadPhoto_Click 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.
ReminderJob.SendReminders (cognitive 47) Entities/Reminders/ReminderJob.vb:53— ReminderJob.SendReminders 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.
CommentForm.CommentFormFields.Get (cognitive 46) CommentForm.ascx.vb:33— CommentForm.CommentFormFields.Get 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.
SWFUploader.CheckLimit (cognitive 45) Controls/SWFUploader.ashx.vb:63— SWFUploader.CheckLimit 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.
LayoutController.GetTypeLink (cognitive 45) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7137— LayoutController.GetTypeLink 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.
SearchSmallOptions.LoadSettings (cognitive 42) SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:201— SearchSmallOptions.LoadSettings 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.
LatestOptions.cmdAddCustomField_Click (cognitive 39) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:427— LatestOptions.cmdAddCustomField_Click 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.
ContactForm.MailTo.Get (cognitive 37) ContactForm.ascx.vb:93— ContactForm.MailTo.Get 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.
CurrencyConverter.ConvertCurrency (cognitive 36) CurrencyConverter.ascx.vb:42— CurrencyConverter.ConvertCurrency 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.
EditLayoutSettings.BindSortBy (cognitive 36) EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:218— EditLayoutSettings.BindSortBy 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.
LayoutController.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 36) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:3385— LayoutController.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
LayoutController.ProcessPhoto (cognitive 36) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7010— LayoutController.ProcessPhoto 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.
SearchSmall.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 36) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:315— SearchSmall.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
Types.ProcessHeaderFooter (cognitive 36) Types.ascx.vb:118— Types.ProcessHeaderFooter 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.
EditPropertyPhotos.dlPhotos_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 35) Controls/EditPropertyPhotos.ascx.vb:132— EditPropertyPhotos.dlPhotos_OnItemDataBound 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.
SendToFriendForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 35) SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:263— SendToFriendForm.rptDetails_OnItemDataBound 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.
Print.ManageStyleSheets (cognitive 35) Print.aspx.vb:32— Print.ManageStyleSheets 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.
LayoutController.GetPropertyLink (cognitive 34) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:376— LayoutController.GetPropertyLink 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.
EditPropertyTypes.BindPropertyTypes (cognitive 33) EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:88— EditPropertyTypes.BindPropertyTypes 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.
PropertyAgentBase.GetLimit (cognitive 32) Entities/PropertyAgentBase.vb:96— PropertyAgentBase.GetLimit 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.
Latest.GetLimit (cognitive 32) Latest.ascx.vb:107— Latest.GetLimit 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.
EditProperties.BindSortBy (cognitive 31) EditProperties.ascx.vb:160— EditProperties.BindSortBy 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.
SWFUploader.ProcessRequest (cognitive 30) Controls/SWFUploader.ashx.vb:150— SWFUploader.ProcessRequest 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.
Search.BindDetails (cognitive 29) Search.ascx.vb:49— Search.BindDetails 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.
EditPropertyPhotos.dlPhotos_OnItemCommand (cognitive 27) Controls/EditPropertyPhotos.ascx.vb:212— EditPropertyPhotos.dlPhotos_OnItemCommand 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.
EditCustomFields.grdCustomFields_ItemDataBound (cognitive 27) EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:222— EditCustomFields.grdCustomFields_ItemDataBound 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.
EditCustomFields.grdCustomFields_ItemCommand (cognitive 27) EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:296— EditCustomFields.grdCustomFields_ItemCommand 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.
LatestOptions.UpdateSettings (cognitive 27) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:687— LatestOptions.UpdateSettings 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.
AgentController.AddUsersToList (cognitive 26) Entities/AgentController.vb:163— AgentController.AddUsersToList has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LatestOptions.BindSortBy (cognitive 26) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:111— LatestOptions.BindSortBy has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ViewType.GetAdditionalParams (cognitive 26) ViewType.ascx.vb:1072— ViewType.GetAdditionalParams has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ContactForm.ContactFormFields.Get (cognitive 25) ContactForm.ascx.vb:21— ContactForm.ContactFormFields.Get 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.
PagingControl.CreateURL (cognitive 25) Entities/WebControls/PagingControl.vb:264— PagingControl.CreateURL 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.
LayoutController.SiblingSearchProperties.Get (cognitive 25) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:197— LayoutController.SiblingSearchProperties.Get 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.
ImportTemplateDefinition.ImportTemplate (cognitive 23) ImportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:56— ImportTemplateDefinition.ImportTemplate 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.
LandingPage.GetTypeLink (cognitive 23) LandingPage.ascx.vb:325— LandingPage.GetTypeLink 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.
Search.GetTypeLink (cognitive 23) Search.ascx.vb:255— Search.GetTypeLink 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.
SearchSmall.GetTypeLink (cognitive 23) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:274— SearchSmall.GetTypeLink 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.
ViewType.dlProperty_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 23) ViewType.ascx.vb:1274— ViewType.dlProperty_OnItemDataBound 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 shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ViewType.rptProperty_OnItemDataBound) 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.
ViewType.rptProperty_OnItemDataBound (cognitive 23) ViewType.ascx.vb:1329— ViewType.rptProperty_OnItemDataBound 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 shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ViewType.dlProperty_OnItemDataBound) 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.
NotificationJob.SendReminders (cognitive 22) Entities/Reminders/NotificationJob.vb:53— NotificationJob.SendReminders 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.
Types.BindTypes (cognitive 22) Types.ascx.vb:20— Types.BindTypes 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.
ViewContactLog.DataGrid1_ItemDataBound (cognitive 21) ViewContactLog.ascx.vb:186— ViewContactLog.DataGrid1_ItemDataBound 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.
PagingControl.BindPageNumbers (cognitive 21) Entities/WebControls/PagingControl.vb:211— PagingControl.BindPageNumbers 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.
AgentController.FillUserInfo (cognitive 21) Entities/AgentController.vb:217— AgentController.FillUserInfo 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.
LayoutController.GetPhotoPath (cognitive 21) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:872— LayoutController.GetPhotoPath 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.
SearchSmallOptions.UpdateSettings (cognitive 21) SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:280— SearchSmallOptions.UpdateSettings 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.
TypesOptions.UpdateSettings (cognitive 21) TypesOptions.ascx.vb:203— TypesOptions.UpdateSettings 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.
TypesOptions.cmdAddAgent_Click (cognitive 21) TypesOptions.ascx.vb:277— TypesOptions.cmdAddAgent_Click 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.
EditContactField.cmdUpdate_Click (cognitive 20) EditContactField.ascx.vb:229— EditContactField.cmdUpdate_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.
EditProperties.BindProperties (cognitive 19) EditProperties.ascx.vb:282— EditProperties.BindProperties 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.
EditProperty.cmdUpdate_Click (cognitive 19) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1991— EditProperty.cmdUpdate_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.
EditProperty.cmdClone_Click (cognitive 19) EditProperty.ascx.vb:2085— EditProperty.cmdClone_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.
LayoutController.ProcessRSSHeader (cognitive 19) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:2335— LayoutController.ProcessRSSHeader 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.
PropertyController.List (cognitive 19) Entities/Property/PropertyController.vb:111— PropertyController.List 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.
ImageHandler.ProcessRequest (cognitive 19) ImageHandler.ashx.vb:71— ImageHandler.ProcessRequest 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.
UploadPhotoHTML5.GetImageByUrl (cognitive 18) Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb:113— UploadPhotoHTML5.GetImageByUrl 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.
EditCustomField.valFieldElementsFrom_ServerValidate (cognitive 18) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:749— EditCustomField.valFieldElementsFrom_ServerValidate 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 shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (EditCustomField.valFieldElementsTo_ServerValidate) 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.
EditCustomField.valFieldElementsTo_ServerValidate (cognitive 18) EditCustomField.ascx.vb:794— EditCustomField.valFieldElementsTo_ServerValidate 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 shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (EditCustomField.valFieldElementsFrom_ServerValidate) 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.
EditPermissions.grdPermissions_ItemDataBound (cognitive 18) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:433— EditPermissions.grdPermissions_ItemDataBound 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.
UploadPhotoHTML5.cmdAttachPhoto_Click (cognitive 17) Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb:40— UploadPhotoHTML5.cmdAttachPhoto_Click has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
UploadPhotoSWF.cmdAttachPhoto_Click (cognitive 17) Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:232— UploadPhotoSWF.cmdAttachPhoto_Click has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CurrencySelector.BindCurrency (cognitive 17) CurrencySelector.ascx.vb:14— CurrencySelector.BindCurrency has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
EditTemplateDefinition.BindDetails (cognitive 17) EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:68— EditTemplateDefinition.BindDetails has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LandingPage.LayoutController.Get (cognitive 17) LandingPage.ascx.vb:60— LandingPage.LayoutController.Get has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Latest.dlLatest_ItemDataBound (cognitive 17) Latest.ascx.vb:859— Latest.dlLatest_ItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Latest.rptLatest_ItemDataBound) 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.
Latest.rptLatest_ItemDataBound (cognitive 17) Latest.ascx.vb:890— Latest.rptLatest_ItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Latest.dlLatest_ItemDataBound) 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.
TypesOptions.LoadSettings (cognitive 17) TypesOptions.ascx.vb:136— TypesOptions.LoadSettings has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TypesOptions.rptTypesFilter_ItemDataBound (cognitive 17) TypesOptions.ascx.vb:307— TypesOptions.rptTypesFilter_ItemDataBound has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
UploadPhotoSWF.GetImageByUrl (cognitive 16) Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:55— UploadPhotoSWF.GetImageByUrl 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.
ImageHandlerExt.ProcessRequest (cognitive 16) ImageHandlerExt.ashx.vb:122— ImageHandlerExt.ProcessRequest 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.
Xml.ReadQueryString (cognitive 16) Xml.ascx.vb:74— Xml.ReadQueryString 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.
EditProperty.CheckSecurity (cognitive 16) EditProperty.ascx.vb:83— EditProperty.CheckSecurity 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.
EditProperty.Page_Initialization (cognitive 16) EditProperty.ascx.vb:1122— EditProperty.Page_Initialization 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.
LayoutController.ProcessExportHeader (cognitive 16) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:1807— LayoutController.ProcessExportHeader 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.
Export.ReadQueryString (cognitive 16) Export.ascx.vb:84— Export.ReadQueryString 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.
Latest.ReadQueryStringTotal (cognitive 16) Latest.ascx.vb:426— Latest.ReadQueryStringTotal 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.
Rss.ReadQueryString (cognitive 16) Rss.ascx.vb:74— Rss.ReadQueryString 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.
SearchSmall.drpPropertyBrokersCustom_SelectedIndexChanged (cognitive 16) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:3018— SearchSmall.drpPropertyBrokersCustom_SelectedIndexChanged 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.
SearchSmallOptions.BindSortBy (cognitive 16) SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:116— SearchSmallOptions.BindSortBy 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.
ViewType.ReadQueryString (cognitive 16) ViewType.ascx.vb:166— ViewType.ReadQueryString 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.
ViewType.Page_Load (cognitive 16) ViewType.ascx.vb:1234— ViewType.Page_Load 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.
Near-duplicate member pair (232 shared lines) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1720— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1720-1977 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1504-1764 — These two members are variants of one another: 232 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.
Near-duplicate member pair (45 shared lines) ContactForm.ascx.vb:238— ContactForm.ascx.vb:238-419 | SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:146-259 — These two members are variants of one another: 45 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (33 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (33 corresponding lines) SearchSmall.ascx.vb:317— SearchSmall.ascx.vb:317-349 | Types.ascx.vb:120-152 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 33 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (26 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (26 members, 50+ identical tokens) AccessDenied.ascx.vb:20— AccessDenied.ascx.vb:20-48 | ApproveReviews.ascx.vb:15-43 | ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:26-54 | EditBrokers.ascx.vb:29-57 | EditContactField.ascx.vb:76-113 | EditContactFields.ascx.vb:52-80 | EditCustomField.ascx.vb:36-73 | EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:52-80 | EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:14-42 | EditExpiryNotifications.ascx.vb:23-51 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:14-42 | EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:750-778 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:15-43 | EditProperties.ascx.vb:250-278 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:142-397 | EditPropertyNotifications.ascx.vb:23-51 | EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:38-75 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:56-84 | EditReviewField.ascx.vb:76-113 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:52-80 | EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:31-64 | EditTemplateDefinitions.ascx.vb:15-43 | ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:14-47 | ImportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:19-52 | ViewContactLog.ascx.vb:120-148 | ViewType.ascx.vb:424-703 — These 26 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 26 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 26 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) Export.ascx.vb:86— Export.ascx.vb:86-133 | Latest.ascx.vb:428-485 | Latest.ascx.vb:624-645 | Rss.ascx.vb:76-123 | ViewType.ascx.vb:168-225 | Xml.ascx.vb:76-123 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Duplicated block (80 lines × 2) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1898— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1898-1977 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1685-1764 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 (50 lines × 2) ViewType.ascx.vb:1276— ViewType.ascx.vb:1276-1325 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1331-1380 — 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 (49 lines × 2) Latest.ascx.vb:437— Latest.ascx.vb:437-485 | ViewType.ascx.vb:177-225 — before extracting anything, compare `Latest.ascx.vb` and `ViewType.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 124 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 (48 lines × 2) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1769— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1769-1816 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1556-1603 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 (47 lines × 2) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1821— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1821-1867 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1608-1654 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 (23–45 lines × 3) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:227— EditPermissions.ascx.vb:227-249 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:282-306 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:335-379 — 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 (43 lines × 3) LatestOptions.ascx.vb:66— LatestOptions.ascx.vb:66-108 | SearchSmallOptions.ascx.vb:38-80 | TypesOptions.ascx.vb:87-129 — before extracting anything, compare `LatestOptions.ascx.vb` and `TypesOptions.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 73 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 (34 lines × 2) Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:57— Controls/UploadPhotoSWF.ascx.vb:57-90 | ImageHandlerExt.ashx.vb:28-61 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (33 lines × 3) Export.ascx.vb:95— Export.ascx.vb:95-127 | Rss.ascx.vb:85-117 | Xml.ascx.vb:85-117 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Rss.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 110 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 (32–33 lines × 2) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1727— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1727-1758 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1513-1545 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 (29 lines × 3) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:3391— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:3391-3419 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:321-349 | Types.ascx.vb:124-152 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:326— EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:326-347 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:370-391 — before extracting anything, compare `EditCustomFields.ascx.vb` and `EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 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 (21 lines × 2) Search.ascx.vb:309— Search.ascx.vb:309-329 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:42-62 — before extracting anything, compare `Search.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 127 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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, `SearchSmall.ascx.vb:62` calls `Not`, `Request` and `Search.ascx.vb:329` 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 (20 lines × 5) Export.ascx.vb:86— Export.ascx.vb:86-105 | Latest.ascx.vb:428-447 | Rss.ascx.vb:76-95 | ViewType.ascx.vb:168-187 | Xml.ascx.vb:76-95 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Latest.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:34— EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:34-53 | ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:17-36 | ImportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:22-41 — before extracting anything, compare `EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb` and `ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the 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 (20 lines × 2) ContactForm.ascx.vb:390— ContactForm.ascx.vb:390-409 | SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:234-253 — before extracting anything, compare `ContactForm.ascx.vb` and `SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:251— EditPermissions.ascx.vb:251-270 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:304-322 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:365-383 — 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 lines × 2) Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:440— Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:440-458 | Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb:7215-7233 — 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 lines × 5) EditPermissions.ascx.vb:226— EditPermissions.ascx.vb:226-243 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:250-268 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:287-304 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:340-357 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:364-381 — 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 (17 lines × 26) AccessDenied.ascx.vb:32— AccessDenied.ascx.vb:32-48 | ApproveReviews.ascx.vb:27-43 | ChangeTemplate.ascx.vb:38-54 | EditBrokers.ascx.vb:41-57 | EditContactField.ascx.vb:97-113 | EditContactFields.ascx.vb:64-80 | EditCustomField.ascx.vb:57-73 | EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:64-80 | EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:26-42 | EditExpiryNotifications.ascx.vb:35-51 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:26-42 | EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:762-778 | EditPermissions.ascx.vb:27-43 | EditProperties.ascx.vb:262-278 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:378-394 | EditPropertyNotifications.ascx.vb:35-51 | EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:59-75 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:68-84 | EditReviewField.ascx.vb:97-113 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:64-80 | EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:48-64 | EditTemplateDefinitions.ascx.vb:27-43 | ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:31-47 | ImportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:36-52 | ViewContactLog.ascx.vb:132-148 | ViewType.ascx.vb:556-572 — before extracting anything, compare `AccessDenied.ascx.vb` and `EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 5) Export.ascx.vb:117— Export.ascx.vb:117-133 | Latest.ascx.vb:467-483 | Rss.ascx.vb:107-123 | ViewType.ascx.vb:207-223 | Xml.ascx.vb:107-123 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Latest.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14–17 lines × 3) Entities/AgentController.vb:36— Entities/AgentController.vb:36-52 | Entities/AgentController.vb:100-115 | Entities/AgentController.vb:142-155 — 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 (17 lines × 3) LandingPage.ascx.vb:289— LandingPage.ascx.vb:289-305 | Search.ascx.vb:219-235 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1424-1440 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `Search.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) LandingPage.ascx.vb:878— LandingPage.ascx.vb:878-893 | Search.ascx.vb:305-321 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:38-54 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `Search.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:244— EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:244-260 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:317-333 — before extracting anything, compare `EditCustomFields.ascx.vb` and `EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 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 × 8) LandingPage.ascx.vb:1859— LandingPage.ascx.vb:1859-1873 | LandingPage.ascx.vb:1885-1899 | LandingPage.ascx.vb:1923-1937 | LandingPage.ascx.vb:1943-1957 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1646-1660 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1672-1686 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1710-1724 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1730-1744 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `SearchSmall.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 323 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 × 2) Rss.ascx.vb:133— Rss.ascx.vb:133-147 | Xml.ascx.vb:133-147 — before extracting anything, compare `Rss.ascx.vb` and `Xml.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 125 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) EditProperty.ascx.vb:718— EditProperty.ascx.vb:718-731 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:776-788 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:808-820 — 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 (12–13 lines × 2) Latest.ascx.vb:46— Latest.ascx.vb:46-57 | ViewType.ascx.vb:66-78 — before extracting anything, compare `Latest.ascx.vb` and `ViewType.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 124 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 × 4) EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:31— EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:31-41 | EditTemplateDefinitions.ascx.vb:15-25 | ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:14-24 | ImportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb:19-29 — before extracting anything, compare `EditTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb` and `ExportTemplateDefinition.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:229— EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:229-238 | EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:275-285 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:274` calls `Delete` and `EditPropertyType.ascx.vb:228` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) Export.ascx.vb:94— Export.ascx.vb:94-103 | Latest.ascx.vb:436-445 | Latest.ascx.vb:624-633 | Rss.ascx.vb:84-93 | ViewType.ascx.vb:176-185 | Xml.ascx.vb:84-93 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Latest.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 4) ContactForm.ascx.vb:254— ContactForm.ascx.vb:254-262 | ContactForm.ascx.vb:395-402 | SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:159-167 | SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:239-246 — before extracting anything, compare `ContactForm.ascx.vb` and `SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Latest.ascx.vb:875— Latest.ascx.vb:875-883 | Latest.ascx.vb:906-914 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1303-1311 | ViewType.ascx.vb:1358-1366 — before extracting anything, compare `Latest.ascx.vb` and `ViewType.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 124 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 (7 lines × 4) EditProperty.ascx.vb:733— EditProperty.ascx.vb:733-739 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:756-762 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:790-797 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:822-828 — 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 (6 lines × 5) EditContactFields.ascx.vb:224— EditContactFields.ascx.vb:224-229 | EditCustomFields.ascx.vb:224-229 | EditLayoutSettings.ascx.vb:1148-1153 | EditPropertyTypes.ascx.vb:297-302 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:224-229 — before extracting anything, compare `EditContactFields.ascx.vb` and `EditCustomFields.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 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 (6 lines × 4) EditProperties.ascx.vb:216— EditProperties.ascx.vb:216-221 | Latest.ascx.vb:793-798 | LatestOptions.ascx.vb:173-178 | ViewType.ascx.vb:394-399 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:64— EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:64-69 | EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb:180-185 | EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb:386-391 — before extracting anything, compare `EditEmailFiles.ascx.vb` and `EditLayoutFiles.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (46 lines × 2) EditContactFields.ascx.vb:255— EditContactFields.ascx.vb:255-300 | EditReviewFields.ascx.vb:255-300 — before extracting anything, compare `EditContactFields.ascx.vb` and `EditReviewFields.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 88 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 × 9) CommentForm.ascx.vb:198— CommentForm.ascx.vb:198-204 | ContactForm.ascx.vb:184-190 | EditProperty.ascx.vb:73-79 | Export.ascx.vb:171-177 | PdfRender.ascx.vb:122-128 | ReviewForm.ascx.vb:45-51 | Rss.ascx.vb:156-162 | SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb:101-107 | Xml.ascx.vb:165-171 — before extracting anything, compare `ContactForm.ascx.vb` and `SendToFriendForm.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `PdfRender.ascx.vb:137` calls `Page_Init` and `Export.ascx.vb:185` 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 × 3) Export.ascx.vb:64— Export.ascx.vb:64-68 | Rss.ascx.vb:62-66 | Xml.ascx.vb:62-66 — before extracting anything, compare `Export.ascx.vb` and `Rss.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 110 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 × 3) LandingPage.ascx.vb:311— LandingPage.ascx.vb:311-321 | Search.ascx.vb:241-251 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:1446-1456 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `Search.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 3) LandingPage.ascx.vb:327— LandingPage.ascx.vb:327-362 | Search.ascx.vb:257-292 | SearchSmall.ascx.vb:276-311 — before extracting anything, compare `LandingPage.ascx.vb` and `Search.ascx.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Off the main sequence: Ventrian.PropertyAgent — Ventrian.PropertyAgent: abstractness 0.01, instability 0.00, distance 0.99 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Low cohesion: UploadPhotoHTML5 (LCOM4 4) Controls/UploadPhotoHTML5.ascx.vb:23— UploadPhotoHTML5's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
Third-party script without Subresource Integrity Includes/plaxo_cb.html:1— `https://www.plaxo.com/ab_chooser/abc_comm.jsdyn` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 5 such include(s) across the repository's markup.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md— No build/run instructions for the repository's Property Agent module. Add a short 'How to install' section covering cloning, restoring NuGet packages, and running the module locally.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md— No examples of how to add or display a property in DotNetNuke. Add an example showing the Property Agent form and how to bind it to a car/boat/realestate model.
Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md— No contribution guidance for developers. Include PR guidelines, CI setup, and a link to the wiki's 'Contributing' section.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Most significant orphaned file · ×3
Most significant orphaned file Entities/Layout/LayoutController.vb— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file SearchSmall.ascx.vb— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file Entities/Property/PropertySettings.vb— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
Dormant codebase — 89 of 89 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 89 separate risks. Counted over 89 of the 157 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
Thin README — The root README is 32 words, against a bar of 120. Of the three newcomer-critical sections this check looks for by heading, it found no a build/run or getting-started section, no a testing section, no an architecture or project-map section. Sections are matched on HEADING text only, so material written under a heading this check does not recognise — or with no heading at all — is not seen and this row may understate what the document covers.
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 mixed at the repository root with everything else the repository holds, so nothing marks which files are 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.)
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.
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).
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 01a0f7d2-f4c5-7b17-accb-dff8fff93cde · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 64 · Warnings: 453 · Recommendations: 25 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 01-10-2026 @ 14:16 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.