Duplicated Code

fensu check enforces rules about where code lives and how it is shaped. It has no rule for “this logic already exists somewhere else”, because no rule can say in advance which two functions ought to be one. Duplication still counts as architectural drift, though. It is simply drift that shows up as evidence rather than as a rule violation. fensu dupes collects that evidence. It reports ranked clusters of function-level copies, so you can decide what each one means.

Why a copy is drift

A copied function is rarely just repeated text. It usually points at a structural problem:

A missing shared owner. Several modules needed the same behaviour, and none of them owned it, so each grew its own copy.
Parallel implementations of one concept. Two subsystems each implement “what counts as available stock” or “how an order total is computed”.
Logic on the wrong side of a boundary. Behaviour that belongs to one domain was re-implemented in its callers instead of being published by its owner.

Once copies exist, they drift apart without anyone noticing. A fix lands in the copy someone was looking at, and the others keep the bug. Each copy can still pass its own tests, and fensu check still reports Found 0 faults, because every copy sits in a valid place with a valid shape.

Evidence worth keeping

Similarity is deterministic. The same source always yields the same clusters, so a cluster is a concrete, reproducible claim you can review. A cluster is also usually the only trace of the underlying drift. Once you merge the copies, the missing owner, the misplaced logic, or the fix that reached only one copy stops being visible anywhere. Diagnose before you consolidate:

Work out why the copy exists.
Use --diff to see which differences are deliberate and which are an unfinished fix.
Record the diagnosis in the review, handoff, or an issue.
Then remove the copies.

A worked example

A small shop publishes its product catalogue in three feed formats. Each feed is its own subdomain under feeds/, and each copied the same row-preparation helper into its own _helpers/rows.py. The JSON feed genuinely differs: it publishes prices in cents, while the others publish decimal prices.

src/shop/feeds/
├── csv/
│   ├── _helpers/rows.py    # prepare_rows
│   └── main/export_feed.py
├── json/
│   ├── _helpers/rows.py    # prepare_rows, prices in cents
│   └── main/export_feed.py
└── tsv/
    ├── _helpers/rows.py    # prepare_rows
    └── main/export_feed.py

The repository is clean under the default policy:

$ fensu check
Found 0 faults

A fix that reached one copy

A branch stops exporting discontinued products. The developer found the CSV helper and fixed it there:

        if available <= 0 or product.get("discontinued"):
            continue

fensu check still passes. Before review, fensu dupes compares the branch with main:

$ fensu dupes --since main --diff
fensu dupes: 1 duplicated-code cluster changed since main (advisory; duplicated-code findings to review, not fensu check failures)
analysed python 3 units; 0 allowlisted pairs hidden; 0 contract-exempt members hidden
  1. near-miss sim 0.96-0.99, ~248 duplicated tokens, 3 members
     src/shop/feeds/csv/_helpers/rows.py:4-17 prepare_rows (133 tokens) [changed]
     src/shop/feeds/json/_helpers/rows.py:4-17 prepare_rows (124 tokens)
     src/shop/feeds/tsv/_helpers/rows.py:4-17 prepare_rows (126 tokens)
     diff src/shop/feeds/csv/_helpers/rows.py:4-17 vs src/shop/feeds/json/_helpers/rows.py:4-17
       - 12: if available <= 0 or product.get("discontinued"):
       + 12: if available <= 0:
       - 15: rows.append({"sku": sku, "available": available, "price": price_cents / 100})
       + 15: rows.append({"sku": sku, "available": available, "price_cents": price_cents})

The diff shows two different kinds of difference:

Line 12 is the fix. It reached the CSV feed only, so the JSON and TSV feeds would keep publishing discontinued products.
Line 15 is a genuine difference: the JSON feed’s price format.

The diagnosis

The feeds share one concept, “the rows a feed publishes”, and nothing owns it. The three copies are the symptom, and the partial fix is the cost. Write that down before touching the code, for example:

Three feeds copied prepare_rows. The discontinued-product fix reached only CSV.
The only intended difference is the price format. Consolidate into one owner under
feeds/ with the price format as an explicit parameter.

Consolidating into a shared owner

The obvious shortcut is to keep the CSV copy and import it from the other feeds. fensu check rejects that, because it reaches into another owner’s internals:

FFL101  import 'shop.feeds.csv._helpers.rows' reaches into sibling internals
 --> src/shop/feeds/tsv/main/export_feed.py:3:0
  |
3 | from shop.feeds.csv._helpers.rows import prepare_rows
  | ^
  |
  = help: Publish the dependency through the owning sibling's main/ entry or role files.

Instead, the behaviour gets its own owner, feeds/rows/, and the real difference becomes an explicit keyword argument rather than a divergent copy:

# src/shop/feeds/rows/main/_prepare_rows.py
def prepare_rows(
    *, products: list[dict[str, object]], price_in_cents: bool
) -> list[dict[str, object]]:
    """Return feed rows for products that are in stock and still sold."""
    rows: list[dict[str, object]] = []
    for product in products:
        sku: str = str(product["sku"]).strip().upper()
        on_hand: int = int(product["on_hand"])
        reserved: int = int(product["reserved"])
        available: int = on_hand - reserved
        if available <= 0 or product.get("discontinued"):
            continue
        price_cents: int = int(product["price_cents"])
        price: dict[str, object] = (
            {"price_cents": price_cents} if price_in_cents else {"price": price_cents / 100}
        )
        rows.append({"sku": sku, "available": available, **price})
    rows.sort(key=lambda row: str(row["sku"]))
    return rows

# src/shop/feeds/json/main/export_feed.py
rows: list[dict[str, object]] = prepare_rows(products=products, price_in_cents=True)

check shaped that placement too. The first draft named the module prepare_rows.py, and check returned two faults:

FFS120 asked for keyword-only parameters, so every call names its meaning.
FFL105 reported that a public main/ entry imported only from inside its own feeds domain should carry a _ prefix until another domain needs it.

With those fixed, the fix applies to every feed and the branch is clean:

$ fensu check
Found 0 faults

What is left

Running dupes again on the area surfaces one more pair:

$ fensu dupes --path 'src/shop/feeds/**'
fensu dupes: 1 duplicated-code cluster (advisory; duplicated-code findings to review, not fensu check failures)
analysed python 3 units; 0 allowlisted pairs hidden; 0 contract-exempt members hidden
  1. renamed sim 1.00, ~61 duplicated tokens, 2 members
     src/shop/feeds/csv/main/export_feed.py:6-10 export_feed (61 tokens)
     src/shop/feeds/tsv/main/export_feed.py:6-10 export_feed (61 tokens)

The CSV and TSV entry points differ only in their delimiter, which is exactly what renamed means. Here the team decides that each published format owns its entry point, so formats can change independently. That makes the pair an intentional mirror, recorded with its reason:

[[dupes.allowlist]]
paths = ["src/shop/feeds/*/main/export_feed.py"]
reason = "Each published feed format owns its entry point so formats can change independently."

$ fensu dupes
fensu dupes: 0 duplicated-code clusters (advisory; duplicated-code findings to review, not fensu check failures)
analysed python 3 units; 1 allowlisted pairs hidden; 0 contract-exempt members hidden
no duplicated code found

How dupes and check fit together

The two commands split the work:

fensu dupes finds candidates. It tells you that behaviour exists more than once and where the copies disagree.
fensu check constrains the fix. Its layer and role rules decide where the new shared owner can live and how other owners may import it, as the FFL101 and FFL105 faults above show.

Neither replaces the other. check cannot see that two valid functions are one concept. dupes has no opinion about where the consolidated owner belongs.

Intentional duplication

Not every copy should be merged. Fensu gives you two explicit, reviewable ways to keep one. Both require a reason and live in fensu.toml, never in source comments.

Mirrors

Some code intentionally mirrors something else: one module per published format, per external specification, or per independently versioned contract. Record the mirror in [dupes].allowlist so the cluster stops reappearing, and so the reason is on record for the next reader.

Contract-forced copies

Some interfaces require every implementation to define a method itself. For example, a contract test may check that each exporter implements export directly rather than inheriting it. Those copies are required, and a contract exemption marks them [forced] and hides the links between them. The exemption covers only the forced methods. A private helper copied behind them is still ordinary duplication and should still be shared:

$ fensu dupes --path 'src/shop/exporters/*'
fensu dupes: 1 duplicated-code cluster (advisory; duplicated-code findings to review, not fensu check failures)
analysed python 9 units; 0 allowlisted pairs hidden; 2 contract-exempt members hidden
  1. exact sim 1.00, ~74 duplicated tokens, 2 members
     src/shop/exporters/csv_exporter.py:4-13 _render_lines (74 tokens)
     src/shop/exporters/json_exporter.py:4-13 _render_lines (74 tokens)

The two export methods are hidden as contract-exempt. The _render_lines helper each of them calls is still reported, because nothing requires that helper to be copied.

What it is not

Not a gate. fensu dupes exits 0 whenever analysis succeeds. It never fails CI on findings.
Not a zero target. Findings never need to reach zero. A cluster is a hypothesis, and some clusters are correct as they are.
Not a style metric. There is no duplication score or percentage. Clusters are ranked by estimated duplicated tokens, only to put the largest copies first.
Function-level only. Units are functions and methods. Module-level code is not compared, and a block copied into two otherwise different functions appears only if the whole functions are similar enough.

What the categories mean

Category	Meaning in practice
`exact`	The same code, ignoring comments, docstrings, and type annotations. A pure copy.
`renamed`	The same structure with different local names or literals, like the CSV and TSV entry points above.
`near-miss`	Mostly the same, with some real differences, like a fix in one copy only.

Similarity (sim) is a token-level match ratio from 0 to 1. Local names, parameters, attribute reads, and literals are normalised away. Called function names are kept, so two functions with the same shape that call different helpers count as near-misses rather than renamed copies.

Known limits

Units with fewer than 60 normalised tokens are ignored (--min-tokens). A near-miss needs similarity 0.8 or higher (--min-similarity), and at least 0.9 when the smaller unit has fewer than 80 tokens.
Supported languages are Python, Rust, TypeScript, JavaScript, and Svelte. TypeScript, JavaScript, and Svelte are compared with each other. Python and Rust are compared only within their own language.
Test code is skipped unless you pass --include-tests.
Fragments shared by very many units are treated as boilerplate and do not produce candidates.
Contract exemptions apply to Python classes only.

See fensu dupes for every option and configuration key.

With coding agents

Agents copy code readily. When a model needs behaviour that already exists somewhere it has not read, writing it again is the easy path. Generated agent skills include duplicated-code guidance unconditionally, so every agent working in the repository follows the same loop:

Before adding helpers or logic to an area, run fensu dupes --path '<area glob>' and reuse the existing owner. On the feeds before consolidation, --path 'src/shop/feeds/json/**' would have shown all three prepare_rows copies.
Before review, run fensu dupes --since origin/main and look at every cluster marked [changed], with --diff for divergence.
Diagnose and report why a genuine copy exists before consolidating it, and keep consolidation within the requested scope.
Allowlist intentional mirrors with a reason instead of forcing a merge.
Run fensu check so the consolidated owner lands in the right place.

fensu dupes

Every option, output format, and [dupes] configuration key.

Adopting Fensu

Introducing dupes to an existing repository.

Architecture model

The owners and boundaries a consolidated function must respect.

fensu skills

Generated guidance that carries this workflow to agents.

Getting Started

Concepts

CLI Reference

API Reference

Duplicated Code

Why a copy is drift

Evidence worth keeping

A worked example

A fix that reached one copy

The diagnosis

Consolidating into a shared owner

What is left

How dupes and check fit together

Intentional duplication

Mirrors

Contract-forced copies

What it is not

What the categories mean

Known limits

With coding agents

fensu dupes

Adopting Fensu

Architecture model

fensu skills

​Why a copy is drift

​Evidence worth keeping

​A worked example

​A fix that reached one copy

​The diagnosis

​Consolidating into a shared owner

​What is left

​How dupes and check fit together

​Intentional duplication

​Mirrors

​Contract-forced copies

​What it is not

​What the categories mean

​Known limits

​With coding agents

​Related

fensu dupes

Adopting Fensu

Architecture model

fensu skills

Why a copy is drift

Evidence worth keeping

A worked example

A fix that reached one copy

The diagnosis

Consolidating into a shared owner

What is left

How dupes and check fit together

Intentional duplication

Mirrors

Contract-forced copies

What it is not

What the categories mean

Known limits

With coding agents

Related