Implement multi-factor risk assessment for refactoring operations #52

Copilot · 2025-12-16T16:47:00Z

Implementation Plan for Advanced Risk Assessment

Summary

Successfully implemented advanced risk assessment with multi-factor scoring. All 54 risk assessment tests pass with 89% coverage. Code is Python 3.8+ compatible with centralized risk display logic.

Original prompt

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>2.1 Advanced Risk Assessment</issue_title>
<issue_description>Implement multi-factor risk scoring: Impact scope (how many parts of code affected) Type of change (renaming vs restructuring) Test coverage dependency (risky if low test coverage) Add dependency impact analysis (what breaks if this refactoring is applied) Create risk visualization in reports and CLI output</issue_description>

<agent_instructions>Donot over write and donot write the unwanted comments just implement the functionality in a better way</agent_instructions>

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

Fixes 2.1 Advanced Risk Assessment #51

💬 We'd love your input! Share your thoughts on Copilot coding agent in our 2 minute survey.

coderabbitai · 2025-12-16T16:47:08Z

Important

Review skipped

Bot user detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note

Other AI code review bot(s) detected

CodeRabbit has detected other AI code review bot(s) in this pull request and will avoid duplicating their findings in the review comments. This may lead to a less comprehensive review.

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

…ng parameters Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR implements a comprehensive multi-factor risk assessment system for refactoring operations. The system evaluates five weighted risk factors (change type 30%, test coverage 25%, dependencies 20%, impact scope 15%, complexity 10%) to generate risk scores from 0.0 to 1.0, providing detailed breakdowns and visual indicators throughout the CLI and result displays.

Key Changes:

New RiskAssessor class with five-factor weighted risk calculation algorithm
Integration of risk assessment into all four refactorer types with appropriate change type classifications
Enhanced visualization with color-coded risk indicators and detailed factor breakdowns in CLI and result outputs

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`refactron/core/risk_assessment.py`	Core risk assessment module with weighted scoring, test coverage detection, dependency analysis, and impact scope calculation
`refactron/refactorers/magic_number_refactorer.py`	Integrated risk assessment with EXTRACTION change type for constant extraction operations
`refactron/refactorers/reduce_parameters_refactorer.py`	Added risk calculation with API_CHANGE type for parameter reduction operations
`refactron/refactorers/simplify_conditionals_refactorer.py`	Implemented risk assessment with LOGIC_CHANGE type for control flow modifications
`refactron/refactorers/add_docstring_refactorer.py`	Added risk calculation with RENAMING type, capped at 0.1 for documentation-only changes
`refactron/core/refactor_result.py`	Enhanced diff display with risk icons and detailed factor breakdowns
`refactron/cli.py`	Added color-coded risk visualization helper function with detailed breakdowns
`tests/test_risk_assessment.py`	Comprehensive test suite with 20 tests covering all risk calculation paths
`tests/test_refactorers.py`	Updated existing tests to accommodate realistic risk scores from advanced assessment

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

tests/test_risk_assessment.py

refactron/refactorers/add_docstring_refactorer.py

…nstant Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

omsherikar · 2025-12-17T16:54:27Z

@copilot Some CI are failing fix them

Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot · 2025-12-17T16:58:10Z

@copilot Some CI are failing fix them

Fixed in commit 18f8459. The CI failures were due to code formatting issues:

Reformatted 9 files with Black
Fixed import sorting with isort

All 323 tests pass and all CI checks (Black, isort, flake8) now pass successfully.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 13 comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py:7

Import of 'Set' is not used.

from typing import Dict, List, Optional, Set

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

Copilot · 2025-12-17T17:03:44Z

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

+        change_type: ChangeType,
+        affected_lines: Optional[List[int]] = None,
+        operation_description: str = "",
+    ) -> tuple[float, RiskFactors]:


The type hint uses lowercase tuple[float, RiskFactors] which requires Python 3.9+, but the project specifies requires-python = ">=3.8" in pyproject.toml. This will cause a TypeError on Python 3.8. Import Tuple from the typing module (which is already imported at line 7) and change the return type to Tuple[float, RiskFactors] for Python 3.8 compatibility.

@copilot apply changes based on this feedback

Fixed in commit 4c9de4b. Changed type hint from tuple[float, RiskFactors] to Tuple[float, RiskFactors] for Python 3.8 compatibility.

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

Copilot · 2025-12-17T17:03:45Z

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

+        source_code: str,
+        change_type: ChangeType,
+        affected_lines: Optional[List[int]] = None,
+        operation_description: str = "",


The operation_description parameter is defined but never used in the calculate_risk_score method. Either remove it if it's not needed, or incorporate it into the risk assessment logic (e.g., for logging or storing in RiskFactors metadata). Currently it adds unnecessary API complexity without providing value.

Copilot · 2025-12-17T17:03:46Z

refactron/cli.py

+    if risk_score < 0.3:
+        risk_color = "green"
+        risk_label = "✓ SAFE"
+    elif risk_score < 0.5:
+        risk_color = "blue"
+        risk_label = "⚡ LOW RISK"
+    elif risk_score < 0.7:
+        risk_color = "yellow"
+        risk_label = "⚠ MODERATE RISK"
+    elif risk_score < 0.9:
+        risk_color = "red"
+        risk_label = "❌ HIGH RISK"
+    else:
+        risk_color = "bright_red"
+        risk_label = "🔴 CRITICAL RISK"


The risk level thresholds (0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9) and their corresponding labels are duplicated between _print_operation_with_risk in cli.py and _get_risk_icon in refactor_result.py. This creates maintenance burden and risk of inconsistency. Consider extracting a shared utility function or using the get_risk_level method from RiskAssessor class to determine these labels consistently across the codebase.

@copilot apply changes based on this feedback

Fixed in commit 3f2103e. Centralized risk display logic in RiskAssessor class:

Added RISK_DISPLAY_LABELS and RISK_DISPLAY_COLORS class constants

Created get_risk_display_label() and get_risk_display_color() helper methods

Updated both cli.py and refactor_result.py to use these centralized methods

Eliminated all duplicated threshold values (0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9)

Copilot · 2025-12-17T17:03:46Z

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

+            elif total_deps < 30:
+                return 0.5
+            else:
+                return 0.7
+
+        except SyntaxError:
+            return 0.5  # Unknown, assume moderate risk
+


The dependency risk thresholds (5, 15, 30) and return values (0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7) are hardcoded magic numbers. Consider extracting these as class constants for better maintainability and to make it easier to tune the risk assessment in the future. For example: DEPENDENCY_THRESHOLD_LOW = 5, DEPENDENCY_THRESHOLD_MEDIUM = 15, DEPENDENCY_THRESHOLD_HIGH = 30.

@copilot apply changes based on this feedback

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

tests/test_risk_assessment.py

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

…agic numbers, and populate test_file_exists Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

…gic in RiskAssessor Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-17T19:45:42Z

refactron/core/refactor_result.py

+    def _get_risk_icon(self, risk_score: float) -> str:
+        """Get visual indicator for risk level."""
+        from refactron.core.risk_assessment import RiskAssessor
+
+        assessor = RiskAssessor()
+        return assessor.get_risk_display_label(risk_score)


A new RiskAssessor instance is created every time _get_risk_icon is called, which happens for each operation in show_diff. Since show_diff can iterate over many operations (line 53), this could create many unnecessary RiskAssessor objects. Consider creating a single RiskAssessor instance at the class level or reusing one instance within the show_diff method.

Copilot · 2025-12-17T19:45:43Z

refactron/cli.py

+    from refactron.core.risk_assessment import RiskAssessor
+
+    # Determine risk level and color using centralized logic
+    assessor = RiskAssessor()


A new RiskAssessor instance is created in _print_operation_with_risk for every operation printed. If this function is called multiple times (e.g., in a loop for many operations), it creates unnecessary objects. Consider accepting a RiskAssessor instance as a parameter or creating it once in the calling code and reusing it.

Copilot · 2025-12-17T19:45:43Z

refactron/cli.py

+def _print_operation_with_risk(operation) -> None:
+    """Print refactoring operation with color-coded risk visualization."""
+    from rich.panel import Panel
+
+    from refactron.core.risk_assessment import RiskAssessor
+
+    # Determine risk level and color using centralized logic
+    assessor = RiskAssessor()
+    risk_score = operation.risk_score
+    risk_color = assessor.get_risk_display_color(risk_score)
+    risk_label = assessor.get_risk_display_label(risk_score)
+
+    # Build content
+    content = f"[bold]{operation.operation_type}[/bold]\n"
+    content += f"Location: {operation.file_path}:{operation.line_number}\n"
+    content += f"Risk: [{risk_color}]{risk_score:.2f} - {risk_label}[/{risk_color}]\n"
+    content += f"\n{operation.description}"
+
+    # Add risk factors if available
+    if "risk_factors" in operation.metadata:
+        risk_factors = operation.metadata["risk_factors"]
+        content += "\n\n[bold]Risk Breakdown:[/bold]\n"
+        content += f"  • Impact Scope: {risk_factors.get('impact_scope', 0):.2f}\n"
+        content += f"  • Change Type: {risk_factors.get('change_type_risk', 0):.2f}\n"
+        content += f"  • Test Coverage: {risk_factors.get('test_coverage_risk', 0):.2f}\n"
+        content += f"  • Dependencies: {risk_factors.get('dependency_risk', 0):.2f}\n"
+        content += f"  • Complexity: {risk_factors.get('complexity_risk', 0):.2f}"
+
+        if risk_factors.get("test_file_exists"):
+            content += "\n\n✓ Test file exists"
+        else:
+            content += "\n\n⚠ No test file found - higher risk"
+
+    panel = Panel(content, border_style=risk_color, expand=False)
+    console.print(panel)
+


The function _print_operation_with_risk is defined but never called anywhere in the codebase. The refactor command at line 309 uses result.show_diff() instead. Either this function should be integrated into the CLI workflow (replacing or complementing show_diff), or it should be removed if it's not needed. If it's intended for future use, consider adding a TODO comment explaining when and how it should be used.

Copilot · 2025-12-17T19:45:43Z

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

+            for py_file in self.project_root.rglob("*.py"):
+                if py_file == file_path:
+                    continue
+


The for loop that begins on line 448 iterates through all Python files but doesn't do anything with them - it just continues immediately after the check on line 450. This loop appears to serve no purpose, as all the actual work happens in the second for loop starting at line 457. This first loop should be removed to eliminate dead code.

Suggested change

for py_file in self.project_root.rglob("*.py"):

if py_file == file_path:

continue

Copilot · 2025-12-17T19:45:44Z

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

+        # Find dependent test files
+        test_file = self._find_test_file(file_path)
+        if test_file:
+            impact["dependent_tests"].append(str(test_file))


The test file lookup is called every time analyze_dependency_impact is invoked and may result in duplicate test files in the dependent_tests list. If analyze_dependency_impact is called multiple times for the same file, the same test file will be appended repeatedly. Consider checking if the test file is already in the list before appending, or ensuring this method is only called once per file.

Suggested change

impact["dependent_tests"].append(str(test_file))

test_file_str = str(test_file)

if test_file_str not in impact["dependent_tests"]:

impact["dependent_tests"].append(test_file_str)

Copilot · 2025-12-17T19:45:44Z

refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

+                    continue
+
+            # Limit the number of files scanned to avoid excessive I/O on large projects.
+            max_files = getattr(self, "max_dependency_scan_files", 1000)


The max_files limit is retrieved using getattr with a default of 1000, but this value is not defined as a class constant. Consider extracting this magic number to a class constant like MAX_DEPENDENCY_SCAN_FILES = 1000 for consistency with other constants in the class and to make it easier to configure.

Initial plan

23151c4

Copilot AI assigned Copilot and omsherikar Dec 16, 2025

Copilot started work on behalf of omsherikar December 16, 2025 16:47 View session

Copilot AI and others added 3 commits December 16, 2025 16:54

Implement advanced risk assessment system with multi-factor scoring

df7ab68

Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Update tests to work with advanced risk assessment

a523277

Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Fix code review comments - move ast import to top level and add missi…

8fd2a2b

…ng parameters Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI changed the title ~~[WIP] Add multi-factor risk scoring implementation~~ Implement multi-factor risk assessment for refactoring operations Dec 16, 2025

Copilot AI requested a review from omsherikar December 16, 2025 17:02

Copilot finished work on behalf of omsherikar December 16, 2025 17:02

omsherikar marked this pull request as ready for review December 16, 2025 17:03

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 16, 2025 17:03

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/test_risk_assessment.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

refactron/refactorers/add_docstring_refactorer.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

github-actions bot added enhancement New feature or request refactoring security size: x-large testing labels Dec 17, 2025

Copilot started work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:47 View session

Address PR feedback: improve test assertions and extract hardcoded co…

a107630

…nstant Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot finished work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:51

Copilot started work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:52 View session

omsherikar requested a review from Copilot December 17, 2025 16:52

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:52 View session

Copilot finished work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:53

Copilot started work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:55 View session

Fix CI failures: format code with Black and sort imports with isort

18f8459

Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot finished work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 16:58

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

omsherikar and others added 2 commits December 17, 2025 22:39

Update refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

4aae87a

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

833060c

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot started work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 17:10 View session

omsherikar and others added 3 commits December 17, 2025 22:41

Update refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

ea7580e

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update refactron/core/risk_assessment.py

e49339b

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Address code review feedback: fix Python 3.8 compatibility, extract m…

4c9de4b

…agic numbers, and populate test_file_exists Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot finished work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 17:26

Copilot started work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 17:26 View session

Eliminate duplicated risk level thresholds by centralizing display lo…

3f2103e

…gic in RiskAssessor Co-authored-by: omsherikar <180152315+omsherikar@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot finished work on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 17:32

omsherikar requested a review from Copilot December 17, 2025 19:38

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of omsherikar December 17, 2025 19:39 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

	for py_file in self.project_root.rglob("*.py"):
	if py_file == file_path:
	continue

-            impact["dependent_tests"].append(str(test_file))
+            test_file_str = str(test_file)
+            if test_file_str not in impact["dependent_tests"]:
+                impact["dependent_tests"].append(test_file_str)

Implement multi-factor risk assessment for refactoring operations #52

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Implement multi-factor risk assessment for refactoring operations #52

Uh oh!

Conversation

Copilot AI commented Dec 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Implementation Plan for Advanced Risk Assessment

Summary

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Other AI code review bot(s) detected

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

omsherikar commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

omsherikar Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

omsherikar Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

omsherikar Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Dec 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading