Refactor Application for Improved Code Quality

[google-labs-jules]

This submission includes a comprehensive refactoring of the Java Swing application to improve code quality, maintainability, and user experience. The business logic has been separated from the UI, error handling has been improved to be less intrusive, and the code has been made more readable through the use of named constants and descriptive variable names. Additionally, a suite of JUnit tests has been added to ensure the correctness of the conversion logic.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 14601973496828543777

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[mauriciomenon]

@copilot

[Copilot]

@mauriciomenon I've opened a new pull request, #2, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

[mauriciomenon]

.

[mauriciomenon]

.

[google-labs-jules]

.

Acknowledged.

[google-labs-jules]

.

Acknowledged.

[llamapreview]

AI Code Review by LlamaPReview

🎯 TL;DR & Recommendation

Recommendation: Approve with suggestions

This PR successfully refactors the application to improve code quality and maintainability, but introduces minor architectural coupling and could benefit from additional test coverage and simplification.

📄 Documentation Diagram

This diagram documents the refactored user interaction and calculation flow after business logic separation.

sequenceDiagram
    participant U as User
    participant M as MyJFrame
    participant L as MeuListener
    participant C as Calculos
    U->>M: Clicks button (e.g., btPTNO)
    M->>L: actionPerformed(opcode)
    L->>C: calcula_1 or calcula_2(input)
    C-->>L: result (int)
    alt result >= 0
        L->>M: Update output field with result
    else result == -1
        L->>M: Show error in JLabel
    end
    note over L,C: PR #35;1 separated business logic from UI

Loading

🌟 Strengths

• Solid separation of business logic from UI, enhancing maintainability.
• Comprehensive test suite added for core conversion logic.

Priority	File	Category	Impact Summary	Anchors
P2	src/utils/MeuListener.java	Architecture	Breaking API change reduces reusability
P2	src/operacoes/Calculos.java	Maintainability	Multiple return points complicate control flow	method:calcula_1
P2	src/operacoes/Calculos.java	Maintainability	Complex logic lacks documentation
P2	src/bitbyte/MyJFrame.java	Architecture	Redundant listeners increase complexity
P2	test/operacoes/CalculosTest.java	Testing	Incomplete test coverage misses edge cases	method:calcula_2

🔍 Notable Themes

• Architectural changes improve error handling but introduce tighter coupling between components.
• Maintainability enhancements are present, though some complexity remains in logic and testing.

⚠️ **Unanchored Suggestions (Manual Review Recommended)**

The following suggestions could not be precisely anchored to a specific line in the diff. This can happen if the code is outside the changed lines, has been significantly refactored, or if the suggestion is a general observation. Please review them carefully in the context of the full file.

---

📁 File: src/operacoes/Calculos.java

The error handling has been improved by returning -1 consistently for invalid inputs instead of showing UI dialogs. The related_context confirms the MeuListener properly handles this return value by displaying errors in the JLabel. However, the method now uses multiple return points which could make the control flow harder to follow. Consider consolidating error returns.

Suggestion:

public static int calcula_1(String input) {
    try {
        int n1 = Integer.parseInt(input);
        if (isValidForCalculation(n1)) {
            return calculateResult(n1);
        }
        return -1;
    } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
        return -1;
    }
}

Related Code:

public static int calcula_1(String t1) {
    int n1;
    int result = 0;
    try {
        n1 = Integer.parseInt(t1);
        if (n1 >= SOSTAT_RANGE_START && n1 <= SOSTAT_RANGE_END) {
            result = n1;
        } else if (n1 >= PTNO_2W_NO_TS_START && n1 <= PTNO_2W_NO_TS_END) {
            result = ((n1 - PTNO_2W_NO_TS_OFFSET) * MULTIPLIER_2);
        } else {
            return -1;
        }
        return result;
    } catch (NumberFormatException erro) {
        return -1;
    }
}

---

---

💡 Have feedback? We'd love to hear it in our GitHub Discussions.
✨ This review was generated by LlamaPReview Advanced, which is free for all open-source projects. Learn more.

[llamapreview]

P2 | Confidence: High

The MeuListener constructor now requires a JLabel parameter for error display, which represents a breaking API change. While this aligns with the goal of non-intrusive error handling, it creates a tight coupling between the listener and UI components. The related_context shows this listener is used in multiple places in MyJFrame, and all instantiations were updated correctly. However, this architectural change makes the listener less reusable and harder to test in isolation.

[llamapreview]

P2 | Confidence: High

The same button (btLimparTudo) is assigned two separate listeners with different opcodes, which creates unnecessary complexity. Both listeners perform essentially the same operation (clearing fields). This could be simplified by having a single listener that clears all relevant fields.

Code Suggestion:

btLimparTudo.addActionListener(e -> {
    bitByteInput.setText("");
    ptnoOutput.setText("");
    ptnoInput.setText("");
    bitByteOutput.setText("");
    errorLabel.setText("");
});

[llamapreview]

P2 | Confidence: High

The test suite provides good coverage for valid cases but lacks tests for edge cases and error conditions in the calcula_2 method. Specifically, there are no tests for the unused ranges (4096-4607, 5120-5631, 6144-6999) and the partial latch timestamp range validation.

Code Suggestion:

@Test
public void testCalcula_2_unusedRanges() {
    assertEquals(-1, Calculos.calcula_2("4096")); // Start of unused range 1
    assertEquals(-1, Calculos.calcula_2("5120")); // Start of unused range 2  
    assertEquals(-1, Calculos.calcula_2("6144")); // Start of unused range 3
}

@Test
public void testCalcula_2_invalidLatchGaps() {
    // Test values in latch range that fall in gaps (n2 % 16 > 7)
    assertEquals(-1, Calculos.calcula_2("5640"));
    assertEquals(-1, Calculos.calcula_2("5656"));
}

Evidence: method:calcula_2

[llamapreview]

P2 | Confidence: Medium

The extracted method reduces complexity in calcula_2, but the complex offset calculation logic with special cases for blocks >= 10 could benefit from additional documentation or further decomposition. The magic numbers in the offset calculation (2 * block + 2 * (block - 9)) should be explained with comments.

Code Suggestion:

private static int calculaLatchComTimestamp(int n2) {
    if ((n2 % 16) > 7) { // Gap between valid values in each block
        return -1;
    }
    int block = (n2 - BITBYTE_LATCH_TS_START) / 16;
    int offset = calculateLatchOffset(block);
    return (n2 + BITBYTE_LATCH_TS_OFFSET) - offset;
}

private static int calculateLatchOffset(int block) {
    if (block >= 10) {
        // Special offset formula for blocks 10 and 11
        return (2 * block) + (2 * (block - 9));
    }
    return 8 * block;
}