PVS-Studio team creates new diagnostic rules, and gradually refines the existing ones. We've recently enhanced one of the oldest diagnostic rules in the C# analyzerPVS-Studio team creates new diagnostic rules, and gradually refines the existing ones. We've recently enhanced one of the oldest diagnostic rules in the C# analyzer

How to Prevent Your Code From Turning Into Sausage That Goes Beyond the Screen

Today, we’ll talk about a bug that shows in practice and how "code sausage" can cause a series of problems related to the last line effect and careless copy-paste, as well as lead to new errors.

\ The PVS-Studio team not only creates new diagnostic rules, but also gradually refines the existing ones. For example, we've recently enhanced one of the oldest diagnostic rules in the C# analyzer, V3001, to make it detect redundant parentheses more accurately. As a result, the analyzer started detecting new bugs, one of which we show you.

\ This case was detected in the Space Engineers project; this is one of the projects in our internal regression testing database. We use a specific old project version to compare how the analyzer behaves on the same code across updates. But if we look at the latest source code, we'll find that the bug is still there. Let's take a look at the Contains function in BoundingBox.cs.

\ See the problem? Probably not.

\ Why's that? Because long and indecipherable code lines are developers' foes that should be avoided. It's very easy to make a mistake there, as you can see. Let's rewrite the code a little bit to make it clearer.

public ContainmentType Contains(BoundingSphere sphere) { Vector3 result1; Vector3.Clamp(ref sphere.Center, ref this.Min, ref this.Max, out result1); float result2; Vector3.DistanceSquared(ref sphere.Center, ref result1, out result2); float num = sphere.Radius; if ((double)result2 > (double)num * (double)num) return ContainmentType.Disjoint; return (double)this.Min.X + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.X || (double)sphere.Center.X > (double)this.Max.X - (double)num || ((double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num || (double)this.Min.Y + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Y) || ((double)sphere.Center.Y > (double)this.Max.Y - (double)num || (double)this.Max.Y - (double)this.Min.Y <= (double)num || ((double)this.Min.Z + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Z || (double)sphere.Center.Z > (double)this.Max.Z - (double)num)) || (double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num ? ContainmentType.Intersects : ContainmentType.Contains; }

\ Better now, yeah? However, we have to make an effort to spot the error, though. Take a look at the last line of the logical condition:

(double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num

\ As we can see, it duplicates the third line. The condition is enclosed in extra parentheses, but they're superfluous, as all checks are joined with the OR operator anyway.

\ In practice, there should be a check of the Z coordinate:

(double)this.Max.Z - (double)this.Min.Z <= (double)num

\ The analyzer detects it and issues a warning: V3001 There are identical sub-expressions '(double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num' to the left and to the right of the '||' operator.

\ This is a good example of how a static analyzer complements code review because it's strenuous to manually discern a little typo in such a massive line. We like to call such code "code sausage"—and we've already written a note about how it lures bugs to your code.

\ The "last line effect" is also shown in all its glory. Typos most often appear at the end of similar code fragments. Technically, we can't talk about lines, since there is a single line. However, the idea still applies: the error occurred in the very last segment of a long, repetitive block.

\ The bug came from a copy-paste typo. Most likely, developers have copied one sub-expression, pasted it as a new one, and just forgotten to modify it. However, that's not all: this entire line with the error has been copied again and shows up just a few lines below, in the nearby Contains function:

public void Contains(ref BoundingSphere sphere, out ContainmentType result) { .... if ((double)result2 > (double)num * (double)num) result = ContainmentType.Disjoint; else result = (double)this.Min.X + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.X || (double)sphere.Center.X > (double)this.Max.X - (double)num || ((double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num || (double)this.Min.Y + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Y) || ((double)sphere.Center.Y > (double)this.Max.Y - (double)num || (double)this.Max.Y - (double)this.Min.Y <= (double)num || ((double)this.Min.Z + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Z || (double)sphere.Center.Z > (double)this.Max.Z - (double)num)) || (double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num ? ContainmentType.Intersects : ContainmentType.Contains; }

It's the same issue with the same warning from the analyzer.

Conclusion

There's no need to go into a long explanation of why this code is problematic, as well as how it should be changed to avoid specific errors. Our readers probably already know that it all comes down to following these tips:

  1. Use table-style code formatting.
  2. Place the similar code in functions.
  3. Avoid redundant operations. For example, instead of type casting of (double)num everywhere, we could simply declare the num variable as double.
  4. Run PVS-Studio static analyzer regularly for additional control.

\

Market Opportunity
PVS Logo
PVS Price(PVS)
$0.00211
$0.00211$0.00211
-0.84%
USD
PVS (PVS) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

“Oversold” Solana Mirroring Previous Bottoms

“Oversold” Solana Mirroring Previous Bottoms

The post “Oversold” Solana Mirroring Previous Bottoms appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Advertisement &nbsp &nbsp Major cryptocurrency Solana is currently wandering
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/24 04:00
XRP Takes Hit as Whales Sell 1 Billion Coins, But Pro-Ripple Attorney Says XRP Will ‘Shock the World in 2026’

XRP Takes Hit as Whales Sell 1 Billion Coins, But Pro-Ripple Attorney Says XRP Will ‘Shock the World in 2026’

XRP is under pressure as broad market weakness and aggressive whale selling push the crypto into a deeper short-term decline. According to CoinMarketCap data, XRP
Share
Coinstats2025/12/24 03:56
UK crypto holders brace for FCA’s expanded regulatory reach

UK crypto holders brace for FCA’s expanded regulatory reach

The post UK crypto holders brace for FCA’s expanded regulatory reach appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. British crypto holders may soon face a very different landscape as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) moves to expand its regulatory reach in the industry. A new consultation paper outlines how the watchdog intends to apply its rulebook to crypto firms, shaping everything from asset safeguarding to trading platform operation. According to the financial regulator, these proposals would translate into clearer protections for retail investors and stricter oversight of crypto firms. UK FCA plans Until now, UK crypto users mostly encountered the FCA through rules on promotions and anti-money laundering checks. The consultation paper goes much further. It proposes direct oversight of stablecoin issuers, custodians, and crypto-asset trading platforms (CATPs). For investors, that means the wallets, exchanges, and coins they rely on could soon be subject to the same governance and resilience standards as traditional financial institutions. The regulator has also clarified that firms need official authorization before serving customers. This condition should, in theory, reduce the risk of sudden platform failures or unclear accountability. David Geale, the FCA’s executive director of payments and digital finance, said the proposals are designed to strike a balance between innovation and protection. He explained: “We want to develop a sustainable and competitive crypto sector – balancing innovation, market integrity and trust.” Geale noted that while the rules will not eliminate investment risks, they will create consistent standards, helping consumers understand what to expect from registered firms. Why does this matter for crypto holders? The UK regulatory framework shift would provide safer custody of assets, better disclosure of risks, and clearer recourse if something goes wrong. However, the regulator was also frank in its submission, arguing that no rulebook can eliminate the volatility or inherent risks of holding digital assets. Instead, the focus is on ensuring that when consumers choose to invest, they do…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/17 23:52