A Study on Architectural Smells Prediction

Architectural smells can be detrimental to the system maintainability, evolvability and represent a source of architectural debt. Thus, it is very important to be able to understand how they evolved in the past and to predict their future evolution. In this paper, we evaluate if the existence of architectural smells in the past versions of a project can be used to predict their presence in the future. We analyzed four Java projects in 295 Github releases and we applied for the prediction four different supervised learning models in a repeated cross-validation setting. We found that historical architectural smell information can be used to predict the presence of architectural smells in the future. Hence, practitioners should carefully monitor the evolution of architectural smells and take preventative actions to avoid introducing them and stave off their progressive growth.</p

State of Refactoring Adoption: Towards Better Understanding Developer Perception of Refactoring

Context: Refactoring is the art of improving the structural design of a software system without altering its external behavior. Today, refactoring has become a well-established and disciplined software engineering practice that has attracted a significant amount of research presuming that refactoring is primarily motivated by the need to improve system structures. However, recent studies have shown that developers may incorporate refactoring strategies in other development-related activities that go beyond improving the design especially with the emerging challenges in contemporary software engineering. Unfortunately, these studies are limited to developer interviews and a reduced set of projects. Objective: We aim at exploring how developers document their refactoring activities during the software life cycle. We call such activity Self-Affirmed Refactoring (SAR), which is an indication of the developer-related refactoring events in the commit messages. After that, we propose an approach to identify whether a commit describes developer-related refactoring events, to classify them according to the refactoring common quality improvement categories. To complement this goal, we aim to reveal insights into how reviewers develop a decision about accepting or rejecting a submitted refactoring request, what makes such review challenging, and how to the efficiency of refactoring code review. Method: Our empirically driven study follows a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. We text mine refactoring-related documentation, then we develop a refactoring taxonomy, and automatically classify a large set of commits containing refactoring activities, and identify, among the various quality models presented in the literature, the ones that are more in-line with the developer\u27s vision of quality optimization, when they explicitly mention that they are refactoring to improve them to obtain an enhanced understanding of the motivation behind refactoring. After that, we performed an industrial case study with professional developers at Xerox to study the motivations, documentation practices, challenges, verification, and implications of refactoring activities during code review. Result: We introduced SAR taxonomy on how developers document their refactoring strategies in commit messages and proposed a SAR model to automate the detection of refactoring. Our survey with code reviewers has revealed several difficulties related to understanding the refactoring intent and implications on the functional and non-functional aspects of the software. Conclusion: Our SAR taxonomy and model, can work in conjunction with refactoring detectors, to report any early inconsistency between refactoring types and their documentation and can serve as a solid background for various empirical investigations. In light of our findings of the industrial case study, we recommended a procedure to properly document refactoring activities, as part of our survey feedback

Code Smells for Machine Learning Applications

The popularity of machine learning has wildly expanded in recent years. Machine learning techniques have been heatedly studied in academia and applied in the industry to create business value. However, there is a lack of guidelines for code quality in machine learning applications. In particular, code smells have rarely been studied in this domain. Although machine learning code is usually integrated as a small part of an overarching system, it usually plays an important role in its core functionality. Hence ensuring code quality is quintessential to avoid issues in the long run. This paper proposes and identifies a list of 22 machine learning-specific code smells collected from various sources, including papers, grey literature, GitHub commits, and Stack Overflow posts. We pinpoint each smell with a description of its context, potential issues in the long run, and proposed solutions. In addition, we link them to their respective pipeline stage and the evidence from both academic and grey literature. The code smell catalog helps data scientists and developers produce and maintain high-quality machine learning application code.Comment: Accepted at CAI

Use and misuse of the term "Experiment" in mining software repositories research

The significant momentum and importance of Mining Software Repositories (MSR) in Software Engineering (SE) has fostered new opportunities and challenges for extensive empirical research. However, MSR researchers seem to struggle to characterize the empirical methods they use into the existing empirical SE body of knowledge. This is especially the case of MSR experiments. To provide evidence on the special characteristics of MSR experiments and their differences with experiments traditionally acknowledged in SE so far, we elicited the hallmarks that differentiate an experiment from other types of empirical studies and characterized the hallmarks and types of experiments in MSR. We analyzed MSR literature obtained from a small-scale systematic mapping study to assess the use of the term experiment in MSR. We found that 19% of the papers claiming to be an experiment are indeed not an experiment at all but also observational studies, so they use the term in a misleading way. From the remaining 81% of the papers, only one of them refers to a genuine controlled experiment while the others stand for experiments with limited control. MSR researchers tend to overlook such limitations, compromising the interpretation of the results of their studies. We provide recommendations and insights to support the improvement of MSR experiments.This work has been partially supported by the Spanish project: MCI PID2020-117191RB-I00.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Behind the Scenes: On the Relationship Between Developer Experience and Refactoring

Refactoring is widely recognized as one of the efficient techniques to manage technical debt and maintain a healthy software project through enforcing best design practices, or coping with design defects. Previous refactoring surveys have shown that code refactoring activities are mainly executed by developers who have sufficient knowledge of the system’s design, and disposing of leadership roles in their development teams. However, these surveys were mainly limited to specific projects and companies. In this paper, we explore the generalizability of the previous results by analyzing 800 open-source projects. We mine their refactoring activities, and we identify their corresponding contributors. Then, we associate an experience score to each contributor in order to test various hypotheses related to whether developers with higher scores tend to 1) perform a higher number of refactoring operations 2) exhibit different motivations behind their refactoring, and 3) better document their refactoring activity. We found that (1) although refactoring is not restricted to a subset of developers, those with higher contribution score tend to perform more refactorings than others; (2) while there is no correlation between experience and motivation behind refactoring, top contributed developers are found to perform a wider variety of refactoring operations, regardless of their complexity; and (3) top contributed developer tend to document less their refactoring activity. Our qualitative analysis of three randomly sampled projects show that the developers who are responsible for the majority of refactoring activities are typically in advanced positions in their development teams, demonstrating their extensive knowledge of the design of the systems they contribute to

Community Smells -- The Sources of Social Debt: A Systematic Literature Review

Context: Social debt describes the accumulation of unforeseen project costs (or potential costs) from sub-optimal software development processes. Community smells are sociotechnical anti-patterns and one source of social debt that impact software teams, development processes, outcomes, and organizations. Objective: To provide an overview of community smells based on published literature, and describe future research. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify properties, understand origins and evolution, and describe the emergence of community smells. This SLR explains the impact of community smells on teamwork and team performance. Results: We include 25 studies. Social debt describes the impacts of poor socio-technical decisions on work environments, people, software products, and society. For each of the 30 identified community smells, we provide a description, management approaches, organizational strategies, and mitigation effectiveness. We identify five groups of management approaches: organizational strategies, frameworks, models, tools, and guidelines. We describe 11 properties of community smells. We develop the Community Smell Stages Framework to concisely describe the origin and evolution of community smells. We describe the causes and effects for each community smell. We identify and describe 8 types of causes and 11 types of effects for community smells. Finally, we provide 8 Sankey diagrams that offer insights into threats the community smells pose to teamwork factors and team performance. Conclusion: Community smells explain the influence work conditions have on software developers. The literature is scarce and focuses on a small number of community smells. Thus, community smells still need more research. This review organizes the state of the art about community smells and provides motivation for future research along with educational material.Comment: Accepted for publication in Information and Software Technolog

A systematic literature review on the code smells datasets and validation mechanisms

The accuracy reported for code smell-detecting tools varies depending on the dataset used to evaluate the tools. Our survey of 45 existing datasets reveals that the adequacy of a dataset for detecting smells highly depends on relevant properties such as the size, severity level, project types, number of each type of smell, number of smells, and the ratio of smelly to non-smelly samples in the dataset. Most existing datasets support God Class, Long Method, and Feature Envy while six smells in Fowler and Beck's catalog are not supported by any datasets. We conclude that existing datasets suffer from imbalanced samples, lack of supporting severity level, and restriction to Java language.Comment: 34 pages, 10 figures, 12 tables, Accepte