Mining Source Code Improvement Patterns from Similar Code Review Works

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Ueda ◽  
Takashi Ishio ◽  
Akinori Ihara ◽  
Kenichi Matsumoto
Keyword(s):  
Source Code ◽  
Code Review ◽  
Similar Code

Why Do Developers Reject Refactorings in Open-Source Projects?

2022 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Jevgenija Pantiuchina ◽  
Bin Lin ◽  
Fiorella Zampetti ◽  
Massimiliano Di Penta ◽  
Michele Lanza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Software Quality ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Code Review ◽  
Code Quality ◽  
Shed Light

Refactoring operations are behavior-preserving changes aimed at improving source code quality. While refactoring is largely considered a good practice, refactoring proposals in pull requests are often rejected after the code review. Understanding the reasons behind the rejection of refactoring contributions can shed light on how such contributions can be improved, essentially benefiting software quality. This article reports a study in which we manually coded rejection reasons inferred from 330 refactoring-related pull requests from 207 open-source Java projects. We surveyed 267 developers to assess their perceived prevalence of these identified rejection reasons, further complementing the reasons. Our study resulted in a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 26 refactoring-related rejection reasons and 21 process-related rejection reasons. The taxonomy, accompanied with representative examples and highlighted implications, provides developers with valuable insights on how to ponder and polish their refactoring contributions, and indicates a number of directions researchers can pursue toward better refactoring recommenders.

scholarly journals Visualization of Inter-Module Dataflow through Global Variables for Source Code Review

2018 ◽  
Vol E101.D (12) ◽  
pp. 3238-3241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoto ISHIDA ◽  
Takashi ISHIO ◽  
Yuta NAKAMURA ◽  
Shinji KAWAGUCHI ◽  
Tetsuya KANDA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Source Code ◽  
Code Review ◽  
Global Variables

Source code review systems

IEEE Software ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Remillard
Keyword(s):  
Source Code ◽  
Code Review

scholarly journals How are functionally similar code clones different?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Wagner ◽  
Asim Abdulkhaleq ◽  
Ivan Bogicevic ◽  
Jan-Peter Ostberg ◽  
Jasmin Ramadani
Keyword(s):  
Data Structure ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Clone Detection ◽  
Code Clones ◽  
Syntactic Similarity ◽  
Similar Code

Background. Today, redundancy in source code, so-called “clones”, caused by copy&paste can be found reliably using clone detection tools. Redundancy can arise also independently, however, caused not by copy&paste. At present, it is not clear how only functionally similar clones (FSC) differ from clones created by copy&paste. Our aim is to understand and categorise the differences in FSCs that distinguish them from copy&paste clones in a way that helps clone detection research. Methods. We conducted an experiment using known functionally similar programs in Java and C from coding contests. We analysed syntactic similarity with traditional detection tools and explored whether concolic clone detection can go beyond syntax. We ran all tools on 2,800 programs and manually categorised the differences in a random sample of 70 program pairs. Results. We found no FSCs where complete files were syntactically similar. We could detect a syntactic similarity in a part of the files in < 16 % of the program pairs. Concolic detection found 1 of the FSCs. The differences between program pairs were in the categories algorithm, data structure, OO design, I/O and libraries. We selected 58 pairs for an openly accessible benchmark representing these categories. Discussion. The majority of differences between functionally similar clones are beyond the capabilities of current clone detection approaches. Yet, our benchmark can help to drive further clone detection research.

scholarly journals AUTOMATED CONTROL OF THE SOFTWARE PROTOTYPE CODE REVIEW BASED ON THE QUESTION-ANSWERING PROTOCOLS FOR REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-129
Author(s):  
Iurii A. Lapshov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Web Application ◽  
Question Answering ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Free Form ◽  
Automated Control ◽  
Code Review ◽  
Source Codes ◽  
The Third ◽  
Answer Format ◽  
Software Prototype

The paper describes the architecture of software tools for automating the management of code review of software prototypes of design solutions that allow to obtain such effects as ensuring interactive interaction between the designer and an expert performing code review, as well as reducing the expert’s time spent on commenting the code by selecting a comment from the list prepared in advance for each requirement from the requirements obtained during the analysis. The tools being developed consist of three main parts. The first part presents requirements in a question-and-answer format including standard comments to be inserted into the prototype code in case of non-compliance with these requirements. The second one is a relational database, which is designed to store the source codes of prototypes aimed at inspection and passed it with expert comments. The third one is a Web-application that allows the designer to send prototype codes for review and see the results of the inspection, and an expert to provide viewing and editing of the prototype source code with the insertion of both standard, pre-prepared comments, and written in free form.

scholarly journals How are functionally similar code clones syntactically different? An empirical study and a benchmark

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. e49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Wagner ◽  
Asim Abdulkhaleq ◽  
Ivan Bogicevic ◽  
Jan-Peter Ostberg ◽  
Jasmin Ramadani
Keyword(s):  
Data Structure ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Clone Detection ◽  
Code Clones ◽  
Syntactic Similarity ◽  
Similar Code

Background. Today, redundancy in source code, so-called “clones” caused by copy&paste can be found reliably using clone detection tools. Redundancy can arise also independently, however, not caused by copy&paste. At present, it is not clear how onlyfunctionally similar clones(FSC) differ from clones created by copy&paste. Our aim is to understand and categorise the syntactical differences in FSCs that distinguish them from copy&paste clones in a way that helps clone detection research.Methods. We conducted an experiment using known functionally similar programs in Java and C from coding contests. We analysed syntactic similarity with traditional detection tools and explored whether concolic clone detection can go beyond syntax. We ran all tools on 2,800 programs and manually categorised the differences in a random sample of 70 program pairs.Results. We found no FSCs where complete files were syntactically similar. We could detect a syntactic similarity in a part of the files in <16% of the program pairs. Concolic detection found 1 of the FSCs. The differences between program pairs were in the categories algorithm, data structure, OO design, I/O and libraries. We selected 58 pairs for an openly accessible benchmark representing these categories.Discussion. The majority of differences between functionally similar clones are beyond the capabilities of current clone detection approaches. Yet, our benchmark can help to drive further clone detection research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document