A Longitudinal Study of Identifying and Paying Down Architectural Debt

Architectural debt is a form of technical debt that derives from the gap between the architectural design of the system as it "should be" compared to "as it is". We measured architecture debt in two ways: 1) in terms of system-wide coupling measures, and 2) in terms of the number and severity of architectural flaws. In recent work it was shown that the amount of architectural debt has a huge impact on software maintainability and evolution. Consequently, detecting and reducing the debt is expected to make software more amenable to change. This paper reports on a longitudinal study of a healthcare communications product created by Brightsquid Secure Communications Corp. This start-up company is facing the typical trade-off problem of desiring responsiveness to change requests, but wanting to avoid the ever-increasing effort that the accumulation of quick-and-dirty changes eventually incurs. In the first stage of the study, we analyzed the status of the "before" system, which indicated the impacts of change requests. This initial study motivated a more in-depth analysis of architectural debt. The results of this analysis were used to motivate a comprehensive refactoring of the software system. The third phase of the study was a follow-on architectural debt analysis which quantified the improvements made. Using this quantitative evidence, augmented by qualitative evidence gathered from in-depth interviews with Brightsquid's architects, we present lessons learned about the costs and benefits of paying down architecture debt in practice.Comment: Submitted to ICSE-SEIP 201

What to Fix? Distinguishing between design and non-design rules in automated tools

Technical debt---design shortcuts taken to optimize for delivery speed---is a critical part of long-term software costs. Consequently, automatically detecting technical debt is a high priority for software practitioners. Software quality tool vendors have responded to this need by positioning their tools to detect and manage technical debt. While these tools bundle a number of rules, it is hard for users to understand which rules identify design issues, as opposed to syntactic quality. This is important, since previous studies have revealed the most significant technical debt is related to design issues. Other research has focused on comparing these tools on open source projects, but these comparisons have not looked at whether the rules were relevant to design. We conducted an empirical study using a structured categorization approach, and manually classify 466 software quality rules from three industry tools---CAST, SonarQube, and NDepend. We found that most of these rules were easily labeled as either not design (55%) or design (19%). The remainder (26%) resulted in disagreements among the labelers. Our results are a first step in formalizing a definition of a design rule, in order to support automatic detection.Comment: Long version of accepted short paper at International Conference on Software Architecture 2017 (Gothenburg, SE

Technical Debt Prioritization: State of the Art. A Systematic Literature Review

Background. Software companies need to manage and refactor Technical Debt issues. Therefore, it is necessary to understand if and when refactoring Technical Debt should be prioritized with respect to developing features or fixing bugs. Objective. The goal of this study is to investigate the existing body of knowledge in software engineering to understand what Technical Debt prioritization approaches have been proposed in research and industry. Method. We conducted a Systematic Literature Review among 384 unique papers published until 2018, following a consolidated methodology applied in Software Engineering. We included 38 primary studies. Results. Different approaches have been proposed for Technical Debt prioritization, all having different goals and optimizing on different criteria. The proposed measures capture only a small part of the plethora of factors used to prioritize Technical Debt qualitatively in practice. We report an impact map of such factors. However, there is a lack of empirical and validated set of tools. Conclusion. We observed that technical Debt prioritization research is preliminary and there is no consensus on what are the important factors and how to measure them. Consequently, we cannot consider current research conclusive and in this paper, we outline different directions for necessary future investigations

Organizing the Technical Debt Landscape

To date, several methods and tools for detecting source code and design anomalies have been developed. While each method focuses on identifying certain classes of source code anomalies that potentially relate to technical debt (TD), the overlaps and gaps among these classes and TD have not been rigorously demonstrated. We propose to construct a seminal technical debt landscape as a way to visualize and organize research on the subjec

Engineering the Hardware/Software Interface for Robotic Platforms - A Comparison of Applied Model Checking with Prolog and Alloy

Robotic platforms serve different use cases ranging from experiments for prototyping assistive applications up to embedded systems for realizing cyber-physical systems in various domains. We are using 1:10 scale miniature vehicles as a robotic platform to conduct research in the domain of self-driving cars and collaborative vehicle fleets. Thus, experiments with different sensors like e.g.~ultra-sonic, infrared, and rotary encoders need to be prepared and realized using our vehicle platform. For each setup, we need to configure the hardware/software interface board to handle all sensors and actors. Therefore, we need to find a specific configuration setting for each pin of the interface board that can handle our current hardware setup but which is also flexible enough to support further sensors or actors for future use cases. In this paper, we show how to model the domain of the configuration space for a hardware/software interface board to enable model checking for solving the tasks of finding any, all, and the best possible pin configuration. We present results from a formal experiment applying the declarative languages Alloy and Prolog to guide the process of engineering the hardware/software interface for robotic platforms on the example of a configuration complexity up to ten pins resulting in a configuration space greater than 14.5 million possibilities. Our results show that our domain model in Alloy performs better compared to Prolog to find feasible solutions for larger configurations with an average time of 0.58s. To find the best solution, our model for Prolog performs better taking only 1.38s for the largest desired configuration; however, this important use case is currently not covered by the existing tools for the hardware used as an example in this article.Comment: Presented at DSLRob 2013 (arXiv:cs/1312.5952