MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2274972169

Impacts and detection of design smells

2012· dissertation· en· W2274972169 sur OpenAlexaff
Esma Aı̈meur, Yann‐Gaël Guéhéneuc, Abdou Maïga

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueSoftware Engineering Research
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCode smellComputer sciencePrincipal (computer security)Software engineeringSoftware designSoftware design patternProgram comprehensionComprehensionObject-oriented designEmpirical researchCoding (social sciences)SoftwareSoftware developmentEngineeringSoftware qualitySoftware systemComputer securityProgramming language
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Changes are continuously made in the source code to take into account the needs of the customers and fix the faults. Continuous change can lead to antipatterns and code smells, collectively called “design smells” to occur in the source code. Design smells are poor solutions to recurring design or implementation problems, typically in object-oriented development. During comprehension and changes activities and due to the time-to-market, lack of understanding, and the developers’ experience, developers cannot always follow standard designing and coding techniques, i.e., design patterns. Consequently, they introduce design smells in their systems. In the literature, several authors claimed that design smells make object-oriented software systems more difficult to understand, more fault-prone, and harder to change than systems without such design smells. Yet, few of these authors empirically investigate the impact of design smells on software understandability and none of them authors studied the impact of design smells on developers’ effort. In this thesis, we propose three principal contributions. The first contribution is an empirical study to bring evidence of the impact of design smells on comprehension and change. We design and conduct two experiments with 59 subjects, to assess the impact of the composition of two Blob or two Spaghetti Code on the performance of developers performing comprehension and change tasks. We measure developers’ performance using: (1) the NASA task load index for their effort; (2) the time that they spent performing their tasks; and, (3) their percentages of correct answers. The results of the two experiments showed that two occurrences of Blob or Spaghetti Code design smells impedes significantly developers performance during comprehension and change tasks. The obtained results justify a posteriori previous researches on the specification and detection of design smells. Software development teams should warn developers against high number of occurrences of design smells and recommend refactorings at each step of the development to remove them when possible. In the second contribution, we investigate the relation between design smells and faults in classes from the point of view of developers who must fix faults. We study the impact of the presence of design smells on the effort required to fix faults, which we measure using three metrics: (1) the duration of the fixing period; (2) the number of fields and methods impacted by fault-fixes; and, (3) the entropy of the fault-fixes in the source code. We conduct an empirical study with 12 design smells detected in 54 releases of four systems: ArgoUML, Eclipse, Mylyn, and Rhino. Our results showed that the duration of the fixing period is longer for faults involving classes with design smells. Also, fixing faults in classes with design smells impacts more files, more fields, and more methods. We also observed that after a fault is fixed, the number of occurrences of design smells in the classes involved in the fault decreases. Understanding the impact of design smells on development effort is important to help development teams better assess and forecast the impact of their design decisions and therefore lead their effort to improve the quality of their software systems. Development teams should monitor and remove design smells from their software systems because they are likely to increase the change efforts. The third contribution concerns design smells detection. During maintenance and evolution tasks, it is important to have a tool able to detect design smells incrementally and iteratively. This incremental and iterative detection process could reduce costs, effort, and resources by allowing practitioners to identify and take into account occurrences of design smells as they find them during comprehensionand change. Researchers have proposed approaches to detect occurrences of design smells but these approaches have currently four limitations: (1) they require extensive knowledge of design smells; (2) they have limited precision and recall; (3) they are not incremental; and (4) they cannot be applied on subsets of systems. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SMURF, a novel approach to detect design smells, based on a machine learning technique—support vector machines—and taking into account practitioners’ feedback. Through an empirical study involving three systems and four design smells, we showed that the accuracy of SMURF is greater than that of DETEX and BDTEX when detecting design smells occurrences. We also showed that SMURF can be applied in both intra-system and inter-system configurations. Finally, we reported that SMURF accuracy improves when using practitioners’ feedback. Keywords: design smells, antipatterns, code smells, bad smells, detection, restructuring, refactorings, program comprehension, program maintenance, fault fix, empirical software engineering.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,051

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,141
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetSoftware Engineering ResearchTravaux en français237 207