Proactive Empirical Assessment of New Language Feature Adoption via Automated Refactoring: The Case of Java 8 Default Methods

Programming languages and platforms improve over time, sometimes resulting in new language features that offer many benefits. However, despite these benefits, developers may not always be willing to adopt them in their projects for various reasons. In this paper, we describe an empirical study where we assess the adoption of a particular new language feature. Studying how developers use (or do not use) new language features is important in programming language research and engineering because it gives designers insight into the usability of the language to create meaning programs in that language. This knowledge, in turn, can drive future innovations in the area. Here, we explore Java 8 default methods, which allow interfaces to contain (instance) method implementations. Default methods can ease interface evolution, make certain ubiquitous design patterns redundant, and improve both modularity and maintainability. A focus of this work is to discover, through a scientific approach and a novel technique, situations where developers found these constructs useful and where they did not, and the reasons for each. Although several studies center around assessing new language features, to the best of our knowledge, this kind of construct has not been previously considered. Despite their benefits, we found that developers did not adopt default methods in all situations. Our study consisted of submitting pull requests introducing the language feature to 19 real-world, open source Java projects without altering original program semantics. This novel assessment technique is proactive in that the adoption was driven by an automatic refactoring approach rather than waiting for developers to discover and integrate the feature themselves. In this way, we set forth best practices and patterns of using the language feature effectively earlier rather than later and are able to possibly guide (near) future language evolution. We foresee this technique to be useful in assessing other new language features, design patterns, and other programming idioms

An empirical study of evolution of inheritance in Java OSS

Previous studies of Object-Oriented (OO) software have reported avoidance of the inheritance mechanism and cast doubt on the wisdom of ‘deep’ inheritance levels. From an evolutionary perspective, the picture is unclear - we still know relatively little about how, over time, changes tend to be applied by developers. Our conjecture is that an inheritance hierarchy will tend to grow ‘breadth-wise’ rather than ‘depth-wise’. This claim is made on the basis that developers will avoid extending depth in favour of breadth because of the inherent complexity of having to understand the functionality of superclasses. Thus the goal of our study is to investigate this empirically. We conduct an empirical study of seven Java Open-Source Systems (OSSs) over a series of releases to observe the nature and location of changes within the inheritance hierarchies. Results show a strong tendency for classes to be added at levels one and two of the hierarchy (rather than anywhere else). Over 96% of classes added over the course of the versions of all systems were at level 1 or level 2. The results suggest that changes cluster in the shallow levels of a hierarchy; this is relevant for developers since it indicates where remedial activities such as refactoring should be focused

Mutation Testing as a Safety Net for Test Code Refactoring

Refactoring is an activity that improves the internal structure of the code without altering its external behavior. When performed on the production code, the tests can be used to verify that the external behavior of the production code is preserved. However, when the refactoring is performed on test code, there is no safety net that assures that the external behavior of the test code is preserved. In this paper, we propose to adopt mutation testing as a means to verify if the behavior of the test code is preserved after refactoring. Moreover, we also show how this approach can be used to identify the part of the test code which is improperly refactored

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

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

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

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