Search

Software refactoring plays an important role in software engineering. Developers often turn to refactoring when they want to restructure software to improve its quality without changing its external behavior. Studies show that small-scale (floss) refactoring is common in industry and can often be performed by a single developer in short sessions, even though developers do much of this work manually instead of using refactoring tools. However, some refactoring efforts are much larger in scale, requiring entire teams and months of effort, and the role of tools in these efforts is not as well studied. In this paper, we report on a survey we conducted with developers to understand large-scale refactoring, its prevalence, and how tools support it. Our results from 107 industry developers demonstrate that projects commonly go through multiple large-scale refactorings, each of which requires considerable effort. While there is often a desire to refactor, other business concerns such as developing new features often take higher priority. Our study finds that developers use several categories of tools to support large-scale refactoring and rely more heavily on general-purpose tools like IDEs than on tools designed specifically to support refactoring. Tool support varies across the different activities, with some particularly challenging activities seeing little use of tools in practice. Our study demonstrates a clear need for better large-scale refactoring tools and an opportunity for refactoring researchers to make a difference in industry. The results we summarize in this paper is one concrete step towards this goal., Comment: 10 pages, 7 figures, 4 tables

Modern code review is a common and essential practice employed in both industrial and open-source projects to improve software quality, share knowledge, and ensure conformance with coding standards. During code review, developers may inspect and discuss various changes including refactoring activities before merging code changes in the codebase. To date, code review has been extensively studied to explore its general challenges, best practices and outcomes, and socio-technical aspects. However, little is known about how refactoring activities are being reviewed, perceived, and practiced. This study aims to reveal insights into how reviewers develop a decision about accepting or rejecting a submitted refactoring request, and what makes such review challenging. We present an industrial case study with 24 professional developers at Xerox. Particularly, we study the motivations, documentation practices, challenges, verification, and implications of refactoring activities during code review. Our study delivers several important findings. Our results report the lack of a proper procedure to follow by developers when documenting their refactorings for review. Our survey with reviewers has also revealed several difficulties related to understanding the refactoring intent and implications on the functional and non-functional aspects of the software. In light of our findings, we recommended a procedure to properly document refactoring activities, as part of our survey feedback.

Refactoring is the art of improving the design of a system without altering its external behavior. 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 refactorings in other development activities that go beyond improving the design. 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 refactoring by mining and classifying a large set of 111,884 commits containing refactorings, extracted from 800 Java projects. We trained a multi-class classifier to categorize these commits into 3 categories, namely, Internal QA, External QA, and Code Smell Resolution, along with the traditional BugFix and Functional categories. This classification challenges the original definition of refactoring, being exclusive to improving the design and fixing code smells. Further, to better understand our classification results, we analyzed commit messages to extract textual patterns that developers regularly use to describe their refactorings. The results show that (1) fixing code smells is not the main driver for developers to refactoring their codebases. Refactoring is solicited for a wide variety of reasons, going beyond its traditional definition; (2) the distribution of refactorings differs between production and test files; (3) developers use several patterns to purposefully target refactoring; (4) the textual patterns, extracted from commit messages, provide better coverage for how developers document their refactorings.

Due to the growing complexity of software systems, there has been a dramatic increase and industry demand for tools and techniques on software refactoring in the last ten years, defined traditionally as a set of program transformations intended to improve the system design while preserving the behavior. Refactoring studies are expanded beyond code-level restructuring to be applied at different levels (architecture, model, requirements, etc.), adopted in many domains beyond the object-oriented paradigm (cloud computing, mobile, web, etc.), used in industrial settings and considered objectives beyond improving the design to include other non-functional requirements (e.g., improve performance, security, etc.). Thus, challenges to be addressed by refactoring work are, nowadays, beyond code transformation to include, but not limited to, scheduling the opportune time to carry refactoring, recommendations of specific refactoring activities, detection of refactoring opportunities, and testing the correctness of applied refactorings. Therefore, the refactoring research efforts are fragmented over several research communities, various domains, and objectives. To structure the field and existing research results, this paper provides a systematic literature review and analyzes the results of 3183 research papers on refactoring covering the last three decades to offer the most scalable and comprehensive literature review of existing refactoring research studies. Based on this survey, we created a taxonomy to classify the existing research, identified research trends, and highlighted gaps in the literature and avenues for further research., Comment: 23 pages

Software systems nowadays are complex and difficult to maintain due to continuous changes and bad design choices. To handle the complexity of systems, software products are, in general, decomposed in terms of packages/modules containing classes that are dependent. However, it is challenging to automatically remodularize systems to improve their maintainability. The majority of existing remodularization work mainly satisfy one objective which is improving the structure of packages by optimizing coupling and cohesion. In addition, most of existing studies are limited to only few operation types such as move class and split packages. Many other objectives, such as the design semantics, reducing the number of changes and maximizing the consistency with development change history, are important to improve the quality of the software by remodularizing it. In this paper, we propose a novel many-objective search-based approach using NSGA-III. The process aims at finding the optimal remodularization solutions that improve the structure of packages, minimize the number of changes, preserve semantics coherence, and re-use the history of changes. We evaluate the efficiency of our approach using four different open-source systems and one automotive industry project, provided by our industrial partner, through a quantitative and qualitative study conducted with software engineers., Comment: Mkaouer, Wiem, et al. "Many-objective software remodularization using NSGA-III." ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 24.3 (2015): 1-45

Background. Refactoring is a critical task in software maintenance and is generally performed to enforce the best design and implementation practices or to cope with design defects. Several studies attempted to detect refactoring activities through mining software repositories allowing to collect, analyze and get actionable data-driven insights about refactoring practices within software projects. Aim. We aim at identifying, among the various quality models presented in the literature, the ones that are more in-line with the developer's vision of quality optimization, when they explicitly mention that they are refactoring to improve them. Method. We extract a large corpus of design-related refactoring activities that are applied and documented by developers during their daily changes from 3,795 curated open source Java projects. In particular, we extract a large-scale corpus of structural metrics and anti-pattern enhancement changes, from which we identify 1,245 quality improvement commits with their corresponding refactoring operations, as perceived by software engineers. Thereafter, we empirically analyze the impact of these refactoring operations on a set of common state-of-the-art design quality metrics. Results. The statistical analysis of the obtained results shows that (i) a few state-of-the-art metrics are more popular than others; and (ii) some metrics are being more emphasized than others. Conclusions. We verify that there are a variety of structural metrics that can represent the internal quality attributes with different degrees of improvement and degradation of software quality. Most of the metrics that are mapped to the main quality attributes do capture developer intentions of quality improvement reported in the commit messages., Comment: technical paper accepted in 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)