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

Toward the Automatic Classification of Self-Affirmed Refactoring

The concept of Self-Affirmed Refactoring (SAR) was introduced to explore how developers document their refactoring activities in commit messages, i.e., developers explicit documentation of refactoring operations intentionally introduced during a code change. In our previous study, we have manually identified refactoring patterns and defined three main common quality improvement categories including internal quality attributes, external quality attributes, and code smells, by only considering refactoring-related commits. However, this approach heavily depends on the manual inspection of commit messages. In this paper, we propose a two-step approach to first identify whether a commit describes developer-related refactoring events, then to classify it according to the refactoring common quality improvement categories. Specifically, we combine the N-Gram TF-IDF feature selection with binary and multiclass classifiers to build a new model to automate the classification of refactorings based on their quality improvement categories. We challenge our model using a total of 2,867 commit messages extracted from well engineered open-source Java projects. Our findings show that (1) our model is able to accurately classify SAR commits, outperforming the pattern-based and random classifier approaches, and allowing the discovery of 40 more relevent SAR patterns, and (2) our model reaches an F-measure of up to 90% even with a relatively small training datase

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

How we refactor and how we document it? On the use of supervised machine learning algorithms to classify refactoring documentation

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. To cope with the above-mentioned limitations, we aim to better understand what motivates developers to apply a refactoring by mining and automatically classifying a large set of 111,884 commits containing refactoring activities, extracted from 800 open source Java projects. We trained a multi-class classifier to categorize these commits into three categories, namely, Internal Quality Attribute, External Quality Attribute, and Code Smell Resolution, along with the traditional Bug Fix and Functional categories. This classification challenges the original definition of refactoring, being exclusive to improving software design and fixing code smells. Furthermore, to better understand our classification results, we qualitatively analyzed commit messages to extract textual patterns that developers regularly use to describe their refactoring activities. The results of our empirical investigation show that (1) fixing code smells is not the main driver for developers to refactoring their code bases. Refactoring is solicited for a wide variety of reasons, going beyond its traditional definition; (2) the distribution of refactoring operations differs between production and test files; (3) developers use a variety of patterns to purposefully target refactoring-related activities; (4) the textual patterns, extracted from commit messages, provide better coverage for how developers document their refactorings

On the Documentation of Refactoring Types

Commit messages are the atomic level of software documentation. They provide a natural language description of the code change and its purpose. Messages are critical for software maintenance and program comprehension. Unlike documenting feature updates and bug fixes, little is known about how developers document their refactoring activities. Specifically, developers can perform multiple refactoring operations, including moving methods, extracting classes, renaming attributes, for various reasons, such as improving software quality, managing technical debt, and removing defects. Yet, there is no systematic study that analyzes the extent to which the documentation of refactoring accurately describes the refactoring operations performed at the source code level. Therefore, this paper challenges the ability of refactoring documentation, written in commit messages, to adequately predict the refactoring types, performed at the commit level. Our analysis relies on the text mining of commit messages to extract the corresponding features (i.e., keywords) that better represent each class (i.e., refactoring type). The extraction of text patterns, specific to each refactoring type (e.g., rename, extract, move, inline, etc.) allows the design of a model that verifies the consistency of these patterns with their corresponding refactoring. Such verification process can be achieved via automatically predicting, for a given commit, the method-level type of refactoring being applied, namely Extract Method, Inline Method, Move Method, Pull-up Method, Push-down Method, and Rename Method. We compared various classifiers, and a baseline keyword-based approach, in terms of their prediction performance, using a dataset of 5004 commits. Our main findings show that the complexity of refactoring type prediction varies from one type to another. Rename Method and Extract Method were found to be the best documented refactoring activities, while Pull-up Method, and Push-down Method were the hardest to be identified via textual descriptions. Such findings bring the attention of developers to the necessity of paying more attention to the documentation of these types