iframe-proxy

aspala · 2026-06-10T16:13:26Z

Was & warum

health-report erzeugte gegen Phoenix-Repos mit JS-Assets eine Reihe von False Positives in den Handlungsempfehlungen (entdeckt beim Lauf gegen position-db, s. #65). Drei Ursachen, drei Fixes:

1. `no_dead_code_after_return` flaggte idiomatische JS early-return-Guards als dead code

Als reiner cosine-Klassifizierer konnte das Behavior if (!x) return; (Guard) nicht von echtem unreachable code unterscheiden — die Aggregat-Metrik-Profile sind nahezu identisch. Sample-Tuning allein war empirisch asymptotisch (Cosine -0.41 → -0.34 über 3→10 Sample-Paare, Schwelle nie erreicht).

Fix: Neue UnreachableCode-File-Metrik (feat-Commit) liefert das strukturelle Signal, das cosine fehlt — sie misst, ob nach einem terminalen Statement (return/raise/throw/break/continue) Code auf gleichem-oder-tieferem Indent folgt. Guards → 0, dead code → >0. Mehrzeilige return (…)-Ausdrücke werden über Klammer-Bilanz korrekt als Fortsetzung erkannt, nicht als dead code. Nach apply-scalars bekam mean_unreachable_after_terminal_ratio das stärkste negative Gewicht (-1.97) im Behavior.

Zusätzlich: 10 good/bad JS-Sample-Paare (Guard-Patterns) als Trainingsbasis, und _excludes_languages blockt jetzt auch json/xml (Datenfiles haben keine returns).

2. `boolean_function_has_question_mark` feuerte auf JS

Das ?-Suffix ist eine Elixir/Ruby-Konvention — JS nutzt isActive()/hasFoo(). JavaScript aus der _languages-Allowlist entfernt (JS-Samples gelöscht → apply-languages zieht das automatisch), doc korrigiert.

3. Re-Kalibrierung

apply-scalars webt die neue Metrik in alle Behaviors ein und re-trainiert die Gewichte über die Sample-Basis. Die berührten YAMLs (consistency, error_handling, scope_and_assignment, type_and_value, variable_naming) spiegeln das — keine bewussten Behavior-Änderungen, sondern die unvermeidliche Folge einer neuen globalen Metrik.

Verifikation (gegen `position-db`, full-repo)

✅ 928 Tests, 0 failures
✅ mix credo --strict, no issues
✅ Neue Metrik mit 7 Unit-Tests (Guard/dead-code/multi-line/edge cases)

Bekannte Grenze

Ein no_dead_code-FP bleibt: sticky_offset.js. Die neue Metrik gibt für diese Datei korrekt 0 zurück — das Behavior feuert dennoch knapp, weil das additive cosine-Modell das starke -1.97-Signal von vielen schwachen anderen Metriken überstimmen lässt. Das ist eine Modell-Grenze, kein Metrik-Bug. Verbleibende FPs (sticky_offset cosine, registry_mass.ex boolean-?, name_contains_and) als Follow-up unter #65.

Refs #65

Detects statements unreachable because they follow a terminal statement (return/raise/throw/break/continue) within the same indentation scope. Distinguishes genuine dead code from idiomatic early-return guards: a guard's trailing code sits at a shallower indent (outside the block) and is not flagged, while siblings at the same-or-deeper indent after a terminal are. Lines ending with net-open brackets are treated as multi-line expression continuations, not block-level terminals. Line- and indent-based, language-agnostic across brace/keyword-delimited languages. Gives the no_dead_code_after_return behavior the structural signal cosine similarity on aggregate metrics cannot capture.

JS has no `?`-suffix predicate convention — `isActive()`/`hasFoo()` is the idiom, not `active?()`. Removed the JS sample pair so apply-languages drops javascript from the behavior's _languages allowlist (now elixir/python/ruby), and corrected the doc string. Also weaves the new unreachable_code metric scalars into this category (side effect of apply-scalars).

JS early-return guards were flagged as dead code: as a pure cosine classifier the behavior could not tell a guard from genuine unreachable code (near-identical aggregate profiles). Two changes: - 10 good/bad JS sample pairs showcasing guard patterns (DOM hooks, listeners, utils, async) as positive samples, so apply-scalars learns the new unreachable_code metric weight (mean_unreachable_after_terminal_ratio -1.97, the strongest negative scalar in the behavior). - _excludes_languages now also blocks json/xml — data files have no returns and were nonsensically flagged. Recalibration (apply-scalars) re-weaves the unreachable_code scalars across all behaviors; the touched YAMLs reflect that, not behavior changes. Verified against position-db: no_dead_code JS false-positives 4 -> 1, force_graph.js (multi-line return) and package.json (JSON) eliminated. Refs #65

github-actions · 2026-06-10T16:15:25Z

Score: C+ → C+ | Δ -1 pts | 10 blocks flagged across 0 files | 0 modified, 0 added

🟠 Code Health: C+ (63/100)

193 files · codeqa-action · 2026-06-10

Combined metric scores use cosine similarity: +1 = metric profile perfectly matches healthy pattern for this behavior, 0 = no signal, −1 = anti-pattern detected. Mapped to 0–100 using breakpoints (approx: ≥0.5→A, ≥0.2→B, ≥0.0→C, ≥−0.3→D, <−0.3→F); actual letter grades use the full 15-step scale.

Metric Changes

Category	Base	Head	Δ
Readability	88.55	97.84	+9.28
Complexity	30.50	41.46	+10.95
Duplication	0.57	0.59	+0.02
Structure	6.22	9.16	+2.94

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
xychart-beta
    title "Code Health Scores"
    x-axis ["Readability", "Complexity", "Structure", "Duplication", "Naming", "Magic Numbers", "Combined Metrics"]
    y-axis "Score" 0 --> 100
    bar [94, 30, 88, 48, 96, 100, 65]

Readability       ███████████████████░   94  🟢 A
Complexity        ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░   30  🔴 D-
Structure         ██████████████████░░   88  🟢 A-
Duplication       ██████████░░░░░░░░░░   48  🟠 C-
Naming            ███████████████████░   96  🟢 A
Magic Numbers     ████████████████████  100  🟢 A
Combined Metrics  █████████████░░░░░░░   65  🔴 D

github-actions · 2026-06-10T16:15:26Z

🔍 Top Likely Issues (cosine similarity)

Most negative cosine = file's metric profile best matches this anti-pattern.

Behavior	Cosine	Score
`dependencies.low_coupling`	-0.56	-12.56
`file_structure.single_responsibility`	-0.52	-12.34
`file_structure.line_count_under_300`	-0.44	-9.44
`code_smells.no_dead_code_after_return`	-0.41	-22.74
`scope_and_assignment.shadowed_by_inner_scope`	-0.34	-4.94
`file_structure.line_length_under_120`	-0.30	-8.32
`variable_naming.loop_var_is_single_letter`	-0.23	3.53
`type_and_value.no_implicit_null_initial`	-0.21	-14.36
`variable_naming.name_contains_and`	-0.21	-36.24
`variable_naming.name_contains_type_suffix`	-0.20	-1.55

🟢 Readability — A (94/100)

Codebase averages: flesch_adapted=97.84, fog_adapted=4.82, avg_tokens_per_line=9.54, avg_line_length=35.75

Metric	Value	Score
readability.flesch_adapted	97.84	100
readability.fog_adapted	4.82	100
readability.avg_tokens_per_line	9.54	72
readability.avg_line_length	35.75	100

🔴 Complexity — D- (30/100)

Codebase averages: difficulty=41.46, effort=237270.59, volume=4072.01, estimated_bugs=1.36

Metric	Value	Score
halstead.difficulty	41.46	41
halstead.effort	237270.59	0
halstead.volume	4072.01	46
halstead.estimated_bugs	1.36	46

🟢 Structure — A- (88/100)

Codebase averages: branching_density=0.14, mean_depth=3.86, avg_function_lines=8.31, max_depth=9.22, max_function_lines=19.97, variance=6.84, avg_param_count=1.16, max_param_count=2.06

Metric	Value	Score
branching.branching_density	0.14	76
indentation.mean_depth	3.86	88
function_metrics.avg_function_lines	8.31	89
indentation.max_depth	9.22	87
function_metrics.max_function_lines	19.97	100
indentation.variance	6.84	100
function_metrics.avg_param_count	1.16	100
function_metrics.max_param_count	2.06	100

🟠 Duplication — C- (48/100)

Codebase averages: redundancy=0.59, bigram_repetition_rate=0.54, trigram_repetition_rate=0.37

Metric	Value	Score
compression.redundancy	0.59	58
ngram.bigram_repetition_rate	0.54	38
ngram.trigram_repetition_rate	0.37	40

🟢 Naming — A (96/100)

Codebase averages: entropy=0.89, mean=6.64, variance=18.82, avg_sub_words_per_id=1.17

Metric	Value	Score
casing_entropy.entropy	0.89	100
identifier_length_variance.mean	6.64	100
identifier_length_variance.variance	18.82	85
readability.avg_sub_words_per_id	1.17	100

🟢 Magic Numbers — A (100/100)

Codebase averages: density=0.00

Metric	Value	Score
magic_number_density.density	0.00	100

🔴 Combined Metrics — D (65/100)

Category	Score	Grade
Code Smells	25	🔴 D-
Consistency	81	🟡 B+
Dependencies	19	🔴 E+
Documentation	83	🟡 B+
Error Handling	91	🟢 A-
File Structure	48	🟠 C-
Function Design	81	🟡 B+
Naming Conventions	90	🟢 A-
Scope And Assignment	28	🔴 D-
Testing	83	🟡 B+
Type And Value	89	🟢 A-
Variable Naming	74	🟡 B

🔴 Code Smells — D- (25/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
no_dead_code_after_return	-0.41	25	D-

🟡 Consistency — B+ (81/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
consistent_function_style	0.36	81	B+

🔴 Dependencies — E+ (19/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
low_coupling	-0.56	19	E+

🟡 Documentation — B+ (83/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 3 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
file_has_module_docstring	0.30	77	B
function_has_docstring	0.45	86	A-
docstring_is_nonempty	0.45	87	A-

🟢 Error Handling — A- (91/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 3 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
error_message_is_descriptive	0.45	87	A-
does_not_swallow_errors	0.60	92	A-
returns_typed_error	0.69	94	A

🟠 File Structure — C- (48/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 5 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
single_responsibility	-0.52	21	E+
line_count_under_300	-0.44	24	E+
line_length_under_120	-0.30	30	D-
has_consistent_indentation	0.26	74	B
no_magic_numbers	0.57	91	A-

🟡 Function Design — B+ (81/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 3 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
is_less_than_20_lines	0.33	79	B+
no_magic_numbers	0.38	82	B+
has_verb_in_name	0.40	83	B+

🟢 Naming Conventions — A- (90/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
function_name_is_not_single_word	0.50	90	A-

🔴 Scope And Assignment — D- (28/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
shadowed_by_inner_scope	-0.34	28	D-

🟡 Testing — B+ (83/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 2 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
test_single_concept	0.27	74	B
test_name_describes_behavior	0.53	91	A-

🟢 Type And Value — A- (89/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
hardcoded_url_or_path	0.49	89	A-

🟡 Variable Naming — B (74/100)

Cosine similarity scores for 1 behaviors.

Behavior	Cosine	Score	Grade
name_is_generic	0.26	74	B

github-actions · 2026-06-10T16:15:27Z

kind: refactoring-tasks
path: /home/runner/work/codeqa-action/codeqa-action
timestamp: 2026-06-10T16:14:55.433355Z
overall_grade: C+
overall_score: 63
task_count: 0
critical: 0
high: 0
instructions: >-
Address the tasks below in order of severity (critical first).
After each fix, run the project's test suite and confirm it passes
before moving on.

No critical or high-severity blocks need attention. ✅

github-actions · 2026-06-10T19:52:44Z

aspala added 3 commits June 10, 2026 18:11

Merge branch 'main' into fix/js-false-positives

c57ab00

aspala merged commit 3f024ce into main Jun 10, 2026
8 checks passed

aspala deleted the fix/js-false-positives branch June 10, 2026 19:50

aspala mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2026

fix(health-report): cosine-Behaviors erzeugen JS/Phoenix-False-Positives (no_dead_code, boolean ?-suffix) #65

Closed

	orig	jetzt
no_dead_code JS-FP	4	1
`boolean_function_has_question_mark` auf JS	1	0
`force_graph.js` (multi-line return)	–	0
`package.json` (JSON)	–	0

Sunbelt Computer Software

PL/B Language Development and Support

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

fix: JS/Phoenix false-positives in health-report (no_dead_code, boolean ?-suffix)#66

fix: JS/Phoenix false-positives in health-report (no_dead_code, boolean ?-suffix)#66
aspala merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
fix/js-false-positives

aspala commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Sunbelt Computer Software

PL/B Language Development and Support

Uh oh!

Conversation

aspala commented Jun 10, 2026

Was & warum

1. no_dead_code_after_return flaggte idiomatische JS early-return-Guards als dead code

2. boolean_function_has_question_mark feuerte auf JS

3. Re-Kalibrierung

Verifikation (gegen position-db, full-repo)

Bekannte Grenze

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🟠 Code Health: C+ (63/100)

Metric Changes

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Refactoring Tasks

1. lib/codeqa/metrics/file/halstead.ex:42-53 — Variable used only once

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

1. `no_dead_code_after_return` flaggte idiomatische JS early-return-Guards als dead code

2. `boolean_function_has_question_mark` feuerte auf JS

Verifikation (gegen `position-db`, full-repo)

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Jun 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading