Structured Review of the Evidence for Effects of Code Duplication on Software Quality

This report presents the detailed steps and results of a structured review of code clone literature. The aim of the review is to investigate the evidence for the claim that code duplication has a negative effect on code changeability. This report contains only the details of the review for which there is not enough place to include them in the companion paper published at a conference (Hordijk, Ponisio et al. 2009 - Harmfulness of Code Duplication - A Structured Review of the Evidence)

RefDiff: Detecting Refactorings in Version Histories

Refactoring is a well-known technique that is widely adopted by software engineers to improve the design and enable the evolution of a system. Knowing which refactoring operations were applied in a code change is a valuable information to understand software evolution, adapt software components, merge code changes, and other applications. In this paper, we present RefDiff, an automated approach that identifies refactorings performed between two code revisions in a git repository. RefDiff employs a combination of heuristics based on static analysis and code similarity to detect 13 well-known refactoring types. In an evaluation using an oracle of 448 known refactoring operations, distributed across seven Java projects, our approach achieved precision of 100% and recall of 88%. Moreover, our evaluation suggests that RefDiff has superior precision and recall than existing state-of-the-art approaches.Comment: Paper accepted at 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pages 1-11, 201

Structured Review of Code Clone Literature

This report presents the results of a structured review of code clone literature. The aim of the review is to assemble a conceptual model of clone-related concepts which helps us to reason about clones. This conceptual model unifies clone concepts from a wide range of literature, so that findings about clones can be compared with each other

Clone Detection and Elimination for Haskell

Duplicated code is a well known problem in software maintenance and refactoring. Code clones tend to increase program size and several studies have shown that duplicated code makes maintenance and code understanding more complex and time consuming. This paper presents a new technique for the detection and removal of duplicated Haskell code. The system is implemented within the refactoring framework of the Haskell Refactorer (HaRe), and uses an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) based approach. Detection of duplicate code is automatic, while elimination is semi-automatic, with the user managing the clone removal. After presenting the system, an example is given to show how it works in practice

Model refactoring by example: A multi‐objective search based software engineering approach

Declarative rules are frequently used in model refactoring in order to detect refactoring opportunities and to apply the appropriate ones. However, a large number of rules is required to obtain a complete specification of refactoring opportunities. Companies usually have accumulated examples of refactorings from past maintenance experiences. Based on these observations, we consider the model refactoring problem as a multi objective problem by suggesting refactoring sequences that aim to maximize both structural and textual similarity between a given model (the model to be refactored) and a set of poorly designed models in the base of examples (models that have undergone some refactorings) and minimize the structural similarity between a given model and a set of well‐designed models in the base of examples (models that do not need any refactoring). To this end, we use the Non‐dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA‐II) to find a set of representative Pareto optimal solutions that present the best trade‐off between structural and textual similarities of models. The validation results, based on 8 real world models taken from open‐source projects, confirm the effectiveness of our approach, yielding refactoring recommendations with an average correctness of over 80%. In addition, our approach outperforms 5 of the state‐of‐the‐art refactoring approaches.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143783/1/smr1916.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143783/2/smr1916_am.pd