[duplicate-code] 🔍 Duplicate Code Detected

[github-actions]

🔍 Duplicate Code Detected

Analysis of commit 2d83ebf

Assignee: @copilot

Summary

Duplicate package collection and validation logic landed in pkg/workflow/validation.go. Three helpers repeat the same loops to gather package names, and two validation helpers duplicate the same pip-check workflow. The drift risk is high because these blocks must stay in sync when the workflow schema evolves.

Duplication Details

Pattern 1: Repeated package collection scaffolding

• Severity: Medium
• Occurrences: 3
• Locations:
  • pkg/workflow/validation.go (lines 303-356)
  • pkg/workflow/validation.go (lines 381-414)
  • pkg/workflow/validation.go (lines 449-482)
• Code Sample:

  func extractNpxPackages(workflowData *WorkflowData) []string {
      var packages []string
      seen := make(map[string]bool)
  
      if workflowData.CustomSteps != "" {
          for _, pkg := range extractNpxFromCommands(workflowData.CustomSteps) {
              if !seen[pkg] {
                  packages = append(packages, pkg)
                  seen[pkg] = true
              }
          }
      }
  
      if workflowData.EngineConfig != nil && len(workflowData.EngineConfig.Steps) > 0 {
          for _, step := range workflowData.EngineConfig.Steps {
              if run, hasRun := step["run"]; hasRun {
                  if runStr, ok := run.(string); ok {
                      for _, pkg := range extractNpxFromCommands(runStr) {
                          if !seen[pkg] {
                              packages = append(packages, pkg)
                              seen[pkg] = true
                          }
                      }
                  }
              }
          }
      }
  }

  The same scaffolding reappears in extractPipPackages and extractUvPackages, differing only by the command parsing helper. Any change to the workflow structure has to be replicated in all three blocks.

Pattern 2: Pip-backed package validation flow duplicated

• Severity: Medium
• Occurrences: 2
• Locations:
  • pkg/workflow/validation.go (lines 182-223)
  • pkg/workflow/validation.go (lines 273-299)
• Code Sample:

  for _, pkg := range packages {
      cmd := exec.Command(pipCmd, "index", "versions", pkgName)
      output, err := cmd.CombinedOutput()
  
      if err != nil {
          outputStr := strings.TrimSpace(string(output))
          fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, console.FormatWarningMessage(fmt.Sprintf("pip package '%s' validation failed - skipping verification. Package may or may not exist on PyPI.", pkg)))
          if c.verbose {
              fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, console.FormatWarningMessage(fmt.Sprintf("  Details: %s", outputStr)))
          }
      } else if c.verbose {
          fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, console.FormatInfoMessage(fmt.Sprintf("✓ pip package validated: %s", pkg)))
      }
  }

  The validatePipPackages and validateUvPackagesWithPip loops share the same structure, logging, and warning messaging with only naming differences.

Impact Analysis

• Maintainability: Keeping the three collection helpers and two validation helpers in sync invites drift the next time workflow data gains new sources or logging changes.
• Bug Risk: Fixes (e.g., additional command sources or logging tweaks) must be applied in multiple places, increasing the chance of inconsistent behavior.
• Code Bloat: Extra copies add ~90 lines of duplicated logic inside a single file.

Refactoring Recommendations

1. Factor shared collectors

   • Extract a generic helper such as collectPackages(workflowData, extractor, includeTools bool) and pass in the command parser (e.g., extractNpxFromCommands).
   • Estimated effort: 2-3 hours to implement and update call sites.
   • Benefits: Single point to update when workflow inputs or dedup logic evolve.

2. Unify pip validation loop

   • Introduce a reusable validatePythonPackages(packages []string, cmdName string) that handles the common loop and logging, with callers supplying the command label.
   • Estimated effort: 1-2 hours.
   • Benefits: Centralized messaging and reduced chance of pip/uv divergence.

Implementation Checklist

• Review duplication findings
• Prioritize refactoring tasks
• Create refactoring plan
• Implement changes
• Update tests
• Verify no functionality broken

Analysis Metadata

• Analyzed Files: 1
• Detection Method: Serena semantic code analysis
• Commit: 2d83ebf
• Analysis Date: 2025-10-17T11:10:01Z

AI generated by Duplicate Code Detector