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)
$0.002272
$0.002272$0.002272
+0.93%
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

FCA, crackdown on crypto

FCA, crackdown on crypto

The post FCA, crackdown on crypto appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United Kingdom enters a decisive phase. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has initiated a consultation to set minimum standards on transparency, consumer protection, and digital custody, in order to strengthen market confidence and ensure safer operations for exchanges, wallets, and crypto service providers. The consultation was published on May 2, 2025, and opened a public discussion on operational responsibilities and safeguarding requirements for digital assets (CoinDesk). The goal is to make the rules clearer without hindering the sector’s evolution. According to the data collected by our regulatory monitoring team, in the first weeks following the publication, the feedback received from professionals and operators focused mainly on custody, incident reporting, and insurance requirements. Industry analysts note that many responses require technical clarifications on multi-sig, asset segregation, and recovery protocols, as well as proposals to scale obligations based on the size of the operator. FCA Consultation: What’s on the Table The consultation document clarifies how to apply rules inspired by traditional finance to the crypto perimeter, balancing innovation, market integrity, and user protection. In this context, the goal is to introduce minimum standards for all firms under the supervision of the FCA, an essential step for a more transparent and secure sector, with measurable benefits for users. The proposed pillars Obligations towards consumers: assessment on the extension of the Consumer Duty – a requirement that mandates companies to provide “good outcomes” – to crypto services, with outcomes for users that are traceable and verifiable. Operational resilience: introduction of continuity requirements, incident response plans, and periodic testing to ensure the operational stability of platforms even in adverse scenarios. Financial Crime Prevention: strengthening AML/CFT measures through more stringent transaction monitoring and structured counterpart checks. Custody and safeguarding: definition of operational methods for the segregation of client assets, secure…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 05:40
Stablecoin rewards provisions face industry test in Senate crypto bill

Stablecoin rewards provisions face industry test in Senate crypto bill

With the CLARITY Act scheduled for a markup on Thursday, some lawmakers could still be at odds over decentralized finance, stablecoins and ethical concerns.As US
Share
Coinstats2026/01/14 01:52
South Korea’s Korbit fined $2 million for money laundering

South Korea’s Korbit fined $2 million for money laundering

The post South Korea’s Korbit fined $2 million for money laundering appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The South Korean crypto exchange Korbit has accepted a
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/14 02:28