Problem Statement

The project requested identification of the worst code sample to understand and address code quality issues that could impact maintainability, readability, and developer productivity.

Analysis Methodology

Created a comprehensive code quality assessment tool that analyzed all 43 C# files in the project, evaluating:

• Lines of code and file complexity
• Method count and length
• Magic numbers and hardcoded values
• Commented/dead code presence
• Cyclomatic complexity
• Single Responsibility Principle violations

Key Findings

Worst Code Sample Identified: Assets/Scripts/TestEnvironment.cs

• Quality Score: 0.0/100 (worst possible)
• 374 lines of code with massive Single Responsibility Principle violations
• 127 magic numbers scattered throughout without documentation
• 6 lines of commented-out code representing technical debt
• 51-line method containing hardcoded satellite data that should be externalized

Critical Issues in TestEnvironment.cs

The file inappropriately combines multiple unrelated concerns:

// Astronomical calculations mixed with test setup
private void TestCreateTLEData() {
    // 25+ lines of hardcoded satellite orbital elements
    storage.CreateData(
        noradCatId: "27944",
        epochJday: 25016.13767123,
        meanMotionDot: .00000172,
        // ... many more magic numbers
    );
}

// Unexplained mathematical constants
temp = -6.2e-6 * tut1 * tut1 * tut1 + 0.093104 * tut1 * tut1 +
       (876600.0 * 3600 + 8640184.812866) * tut1 + 67310.54841;

Solutions Provided

1. Comprehensive Analysis Documentation

• /tmp/worst_code_analysis.md - Detailed breakdown of all issues
• /tmp/comprehensive_report.md - Complete project assessment

2. Practical Refactoring Examples

• AstronomicalConstants.cs - Centralized, documented constants
• CoordinateTransformations.cs - Focused utility functions with proper documentation
• TestDataProvider.cs - Clean separation of test data from logic
• test_data.json - Externalized configuration data

3. Automated Analysis Tool

• /tmp/code_analysis.py - Reusable quality assessment script

Before vs After Example

Before (Problematic):

// Constants scattered throughout, no documentation
private const double a = 6378136.6;
private const double b = 6356752.314245;

// Hardcoded test data mixed with logic  
storage.CreateData(noradCatId: "27944", epochJday: 25016.13767123, ...);

After (Improved):

// Centralized, documented constants
public static class AstronomicalConstants {
    /// <summary>IERS Earth semimajor axis (meters)</summary>
    public const double EarthSemimajorAxis = 6378136.6;
}

// Clean test data access
var satelliteData = TestDataProvider.GetSatelliteTestData("Larets");

Additional Quality Issues Identified

1. SGP4StateVectorJob.cs (1,686 lines) - Legitimate complexity but needs documentation
2. BurstCompiledUtilities.cs - 31 lines of commented-out code
3. LogManager.cs - High cyclomatic complexity (score: 35)

Impact

This analysis provides:

• Clear identification of the most problematic code
• Actionable refactoring guidance with concrete examples
• Automated tooling for ongoing quality assessment
• Baseline metrics for measuring future improvements

The refactoring examples demonstrate how to transform the 0.0/100 quality score of TestEnvironment.cs into well-organized, maintainable code following established best practices.

Files Added

• /tmp/worst_code_analysis.md - Detailed analysis
• /tmp/comprehensive_report.md - Full assessment report
• /tmp/code_analysis.py - Analysis automation tool
• /tmp/improved_*.cs - Refactoring examples
• /tmp/test_data.json - Configuration externalization example

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.