[duplicate-code] Duplicate Code Pattern: AgentLabels bulk label operations missing shared helper

[github-actions]

Part of duplicate code analysis: #2557

Summary

internal/difc/agent.go already has a modifyTag helper (lines 52–59) that abstracts the lock–operate–log pattern for single-tag operations. However, the three bulk tag-operation methods (AddSecrecyTags, AddIntegrityTags, DropIntegrityTags) each duplicate the same ~10-line pattern instead of using an equivalent modifyTags helper.

Duplication Details

Pattern: Bulk label-mutation boilerplate not using helper

• Severity: Medium

• Occurrences: 3 functions with identical structure

• Locations:

  • internal/difc/agent.go lines ~82–91 (DropIntegrityTags)
  • internal/difc/agent.go lines ~93–103 (AddSecrecyTags)
  • internal/difc/agent.go lines ~104–115 (AddIntegrityTags)

• Existing helper (single-tag — used correctly):

  func (a *AgentLabels) modifyTag(labelType, action, pastTense string, tag Tag, fn func()) {
      logAgent.Printf("Agent %s %s %s tag: %s", a.AgentID, action, labelType, tag)
      a.mu.Lock()
      defer a.mu.Unlock()
      fn()
      log.Printf("[DIFC] Agent %s %s %s tag: %s", a.AgentID, pastTense, labelType, tag)
  }

• Duplicated bulk pattern (repeated 3 times):

  func (a *AgentLabels) AddSecrecyTags(tags []Tag) {
      logAgent.Printf("Agent %s adding %d secrecy tags", a.AgentID, len(tags))
      a.mu.Lock()
      defer a.mu.Unlock()
      a.Secrecy.Label.AddAll(tags)
      if len(tags) > 0 {
          log.Printf("[DIFC] Agent %s gained secrecy tags: %v", a.AgentID, tags)
      }
  }
  // AddIntegrityTags and DropIntegrityTags are structurally identical

Impact Analysis

• Maintainability: Any change to the locking strategy, log format, or log level requires touching all three functions independently
• Bug Risk: Medium — a fix or enhancement applied to one bulk function (e.g., adding a log.Printf prefix change) could easily be missed in the others; the single-tag variant already diverged slightly in format
• Consistency: The single-tag functions correctly delegate to modifyTag; the bulk functions bypass it, creating an inconsistent API

Refactoring Recommendations

1. Add a modifyTags helper analogous to modifyTag:

   // modifyTags is a helper for bulk label mutations (analogous to modifyTag).
   func (a *AgentLabels) modifyTags(labelType, action, pastTense string, tags []Tag, fn func()) {
       logAgent.Printf("Agent %s %s %d %s tags", a.AgentID, action, len(tags), labelType)
       a.mu.Lock()
       defer a.mu.Unlock()
       fn()
       if len(tags) > 0 {
           log.Printf("[DIFC] Agent %s %s %s tags: %v", a.AgentID, pastTense, labelType, tags)
       }
   }

   Then refactor the three bulk functions to delegate:

   func (a *AgentLabels) AddSecrecyTags(tags []Tag) {
       a.modifyTags("secrecy", "adding", "gained", tags, func() { a.Secrecy.Label.AddAll(tags) })
   }

   • Extract to: internal/difc/agent.go
   • Estimated effort: ~30 minutes
   • Benefits: single point for locking strategy, log format, and error handling across all bulk operations

Implementation Checklist

• Review duplication findings
• Add modifyTags private helper
• Refactor AddSecrecyTags, AddIntegrityTags, DropIntegrityTags to use helper
• Update tests to verify behavior is unchanged
• Verify no functionality broken

Parent Issue

See parent analysis report: #2557
Related to #2557

Generated by Duplicate Code Detector · ◷

• expires on Apr 2, 2026, 3:35 AM UTC