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)

Code smells detection and visualization: A systematic literature review

Context: Code smells (CS) tend to compromise software quality and also demand more effort by developers to maintain and evolve the application throughout its life-cycle. They have long been catalogued with corresponding mitigating solutions called refactoring operations. Objective: This SLR has a twofold goal: the first is to identify the main code smells detection techniques and tools discussed in the literature, and the second is to analyze to which extent visual techniques have been applied to support the former. Method: Over 83 primary studies indexed in major scientific repositories were identified by our search string in this SLR. Then, following existing best practices for secondary studies, we applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to select the most relevant works, extract their features and classify them. Results: We found that the most commonly used approaches to code smells detection are search-based (30.1%), and metric-based (24.1%). Most of the studies (83.1%) use open-source software, with the Java language occupying the first position (77.1%). In terms of code smells, God Class (51.8%), Feature Envy (33.7%), and Long Method (26.5%) are the most covered ones. Machine learning techniques are used in 35% of the studies. Around 80% of the studies only detect code smells, without providing visualization techniques. In visualization-based approaches several methods are used, such as: city metaphors, 3D visualization techniques. Conclusions: We confirm that the detection of CS is a non trivial task, and there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of: reducing the subjectivity associated with the definition and detection of CS; increasing the diversity of detected CS and of supported programming languages; constructing and sharing oracles and datasets to facilitate the replication of CS detection and visualization techniques validation experiments.Comment: submitted to ARC

RePOR: Mimicking humans on refactoring tasks. Are we there yet?

Refactoring is a maintenance activity that aims to improve design quality while preserving the behavior of a system. Several (semi)automated approaches have been proposed to support developers in this maintenance activity, based on the correction of anti-patterns, which are `poor' solutions to recurring design problems. However, little quantitative evidence exists about the impact of automatically refactored code on program comprehension, and in which context automated refactoring can be as effective as manual refactoring. Leveraging RePOR, an automated refactoring approach based on partial order reduction techniques, we performed an empirical study to investigate whether automated refactoring code structure affects the understandability of systems during comprehension tasks. (1) We surveyed 80 developers, asking them to identify from a set of 20 refactoring changes if they were generated by developers or by a tool, and to rate the refactoring changes according to their design quality; (2) we asked 30 developers to complete code comprehension tasks on 10 systems that were refactored by either a freelancer or an automated refactoring tool. To make comparison fair, for a subset of refactoring actions that introduce new code entities, only synthetic identifiers were presented to practitioners. We measured developers' performance using the NASA task load index for their effort, the time that they spent performing the tasks, and their percentages of correct answers. Our findings, despite current technology limitations, show that it is reasonable to expect a refactoring tools to match developer code