The selection of third-party libraries is an essential element of virtually any software development project. However, deciding which libraries to choose is a challenging practical problem. Selecting the wrong library can severely impact a software project in terms of cost, time, and development effort, with the severity of the impact depending on the role of the library in the software architecture, among others. Despite the importance of following a careful library selection process, in practice, the selection of third-party libraries is still conducted in an ad-hoc manner, where dozens of factors play an influential role in the decision.
In this paper, we study the factors that influence the selection process of libraries, as perceived by industry developers. To that aim, we perform a cross-sectional interview study with 16 developers from 11 different businesses and survey 115 developers that are involved in the selection of libraries. We systematically devised a comprehensive set of 26 technical, human, and economic factors that developers take into consideration when selecting a software library. Eight of these factors are new to the literature. We explain each of these factors and how they play a role in the decision. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work to library maintainers, potential library users, package manager developers, and empirical software engineering researchers.@en

Test smells are poor design decisions implemented in test code, which can have an impact on the effectiveness and maintainability of unit tests. Even though test smell detection tools exist, how to rank the severity of the detected smells is an open research topic. In this work, we aim at investigating the severity rating for four test smells and investigate their perceived impact on test suite maintainability by the developers. To accomplish this, we first analyzed some 1,500 open-source projects to elicit severity thresholds for commonly found test smells. Then, we conducted a study with developers to evaluate our thresholds. We found that (1) current detection rules for certain test smells are considered as too strict by the developers and (2) our newly defined severity thresholds are in line with the participants' perception of how test smells have an impact on the maintainability of a test suite. Preprint [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3744281], data and material [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3611111]. @en

Background: Code review is a cognitively demanding and time-consuming process. Previous qualitative studies hinted at how decomposing change sets into multiple yet internally coherent ones would improve the reviewing process. So far, literature provided no quantitative analysis of this hypothesis.
Aims: (1) Quantitatively measure the effects of change decomposition on the outcome of code review (in terms of number of found defects, wrongly reported issues, suggested improvements, time, and understanding); (2) Qualitatively analyze how subjects approach the review and navigate the code, building knowledge and addressing existing issues, in large vs. decomposed changes.
Method: Controlled experiment using the pull-based development model involving 28 software developers among professionals and graduate students.
Results: Change decomposition leads to fewer wrongly reported issues, influences how subjects approach and conduct the review activity (by increasing context- seeking), yet impacts neither understanding the change rationale nor the number of found defects.
Conclusions: Change decomposition reduces the noise for subsequent data analyses but also significantly supports the tasks of the developers in charge of reviewing the changes. As such, commits belonging to different concepts should be separated, adopting this as a best practice in software engineering.@en

Code comments are a key software component containing information about the underlying implementation. Several studies have shown that code comments enhance the readability of the code. Nevertheless, not all the comments have the same goal and target audience. In this paper, we investigate how 14 diverse Java open and closed source software projects use code comments, with the aim of understanding their purpose. Through our analysis, we produce a taxonomy of source code comments; subsequently, we investigate how often each category occur by manually classifying more than 40,000 lines of code comments from the aforementioned projects. In addition, we investigate how to automatically classify code comments at line level into our taxonomy using machine learning; initial results are promising and suggest that an accurate classification is within reach, even when training the machine learner on projects different than the target one.@en

Existing maintainability models are used to identify technical debt of software systems. Targeting entire codebases, such models lack the ability to determine shortcomings of smaller, fine-grained changes. This paper proposes a new maintainability model – the Delta Maintainability Model (DMM) – to measure fine-grained code changes, such as commits, by adapting and extending the SIG Maintainability Model. DMM categorizes changed lines of code into low and high risk, and then uses the proportion of low risk change to calculate a delta score. The goal of the DMM is twofold: first, producing meaningful and actionable scores; second, compare and rank the maintainability of fine-grained modifications.
We report on an initial study of the model, with the goal of understanding if the adapted measurements from the SIG Maintainability Model suit the fine-grained scope of the DMM. In a manual inspection process for 100 commits, 67 cases matched the expert judgment. Furthermore, we report an exploratory empirical study on a data set of DMM scores on 3,017 issue-fixing commits of four open source and four closed source systems. Results show that the scores of DMM can be used to compare and rank commits, providing developers with a means to do root cause analysis on activities that impacted maintainability and, thus, address technical debt at a finer granularity.@en

Test smells can be found in test code using a variety of tools. In this paper, we present our integration of a test smell detection tool into Better Code Hub (BCH), an online environment for monitoring code quality and identifying problems in it. We extended BCH with test smell detection and observe how developers react to various instances of test smells. By integrating this detection into BCH, we gain access to a wide range of developers working on both open-source and commercial projects using their own code. We study whether developers consider these test smells important and what they do with them in future code changes. From our preliminary results, we found out a high test smell detection accuracy for most test smells; however, developers are only willing to remove a small portion of them.

@en

Test-Driven Code Review (TDR) is a code review practice in which a reviewer inspects a patch by examining the changed test code before the changed production code. Although this practice has been mentioned positively by practitioners in informal literature and interviews, there is no systematic knowledge of its effects, prevalence, problems, and advantages.

In this paper, we aim at empirically understanding whether this practice has an effect on code review effectiveness and how developers' perceive TDR. We conduct (i) a controlled experiment with 93 developers that perform more than 150 reviews, and (ii) 9 semi-structured interviews and a survey with 103 respondents to gather information on how TDR is perceived. 
Key results from the experiment show that developers adopting TDR find the same proportion of defects in production code, but more in test code, at the expenses of fewer maintainability issues in production code. Furthermore, we found that most developers prefer to review production code as they deem it more critical and tests should follow from it. Moreover, general poor test code quality and no tool support hinder the adoption of TDR. 
Public preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551217, data and materials: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2553139.@en

Context: Databases are an integral element of enterprise applications. Similarly to code, database schemas are also prone to smells - best practice violations. Objective: We aim to explore database schema quality, associated characteristics and their relationships with other software artifacts. Method: We present a catalog of 13 database schema smells and elicit developers' perspective through a survey. We extract embedded sql statements and identify database schema smells by employing the DbDeo tool which we developed. We analyze 2925 production-quality systems (357 industrial and 2568 well-engineered open-source projects) and empirically study quality characteristics of their database schemas. In total, we analyze 629 million lines of code containing more than 393 thousand sql statements. Results: We find that the index abuse smell occurs most frequently in database code, that the use of an orm framework doesn't immune the application from database smells, and that some database smells, such as adjacency list, are more prone to occur in industrial projects compared to open-source projects. Our co-occurrence analysis shows that whenever the clone table smell in industrial projects and the values in attribute definition smell in open-source projects get spotted, it is very likely to find other database smells in the project. Conclusion: The awareness and knowledge of database smells are crucial for developing high-quality software systems and can be enhanced by the adoption of better tools helping developers to identify database smells early.

@en

Contemporary code review is a widespread practice used by software engineers to maintain high software quality and share project knowledge. However, conducting proper code review takes time and developers often have limited time for review. In this paper, we aim at investigating the information that reviewers need
to conduct a proper code review, to better understand this process and how research and tool support can make developers become more effective and efficient reviewers.
Previous work has provided evidence that a successful code review process is one in which reviewers and authors actively participate and collaborate. In these cases, the threads of discussions that are saved by code review tools are a precious source of information that can be later exploited for research and practice. In
this paper, we focus on this source of information as a way to gather reliable data on the aforementioned reviewers’ needs. We manually analyze 900 code review comments from three large open-source projects and organize them in categories by means of a card sort. Our results highlight the presence of seven
high-level information needs, such as knowing the uses of methods and variables declared/modified in the code under review. Based on these results we suggest ways in which future code review tools can better support collaboration and the reviewing task. Preprint [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1405894]. Data and
Materials [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1405902].@en

Test smells are sub-optimal design choices in the implementation of test code. As reported by recent studies, their presence might not only negatively affect the comprehension of test suites but can also lead to test cases being less effective in finding bugs in production code. Although significant steps toward understanding test smells, there is still a notable absence of studies assessing their association with software quality.
In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the presence of test smells and the change- and defect-proneness of test code, as well as the defect-proneness of the tested production code. To this aim, we collect data on 221 releases of ten software systems and we analyze more than a million test cases to investigate the association of six test smells and their co-occurrence with software quality. Key results of our study include:(i) tests with smells are more change- and defect-prone, (ii) ‘Indirect Testing’, ‘Eager Test’, and ‘Assertion Roulette’ are the most significant smells for change-proneness and, (iii) production code is more defect-prone when tested by smelly tests.@en

Modern software projects consist of more than just code: teams follow development processes, the code runs on servers or mobile phones and produces run time logs and users talk about the software in forums like StackOverflow and Twitter and rate it on app stores. Insights stemming from the real-time analysis of combined software engineering data can help software practitioners to conduct faster decision-making. With the development of CodeFeedr, a Real-time Software Analytics Platform, we aim to make software analytics a core feedback loop for software engineering projects. CodeFeedr's vision entails: (1) The ability to unify archival and current software analytics data under a single query language, and (2) The feasibility to apply new techniques and methods for high-level aggregation and summarization of near real-time information on software development. In this paper, we outline three use cases where our platform is expected to have a significant impact on the quality and speed of decision making; dependency management, productivity analytics, and run-time error feedback.@en

When testing software artifacts that have several dependencies, one has the possibility of either instantiating these dependencies or using mock objects to simulate the dependencies’ expected behavior. Even though recent quantitative studies showed that mock objects are widely used both in open source and proprietary projects, scientific knowledge is still lacking on how and why practitioners use mocks. An empirical understanding of the situations where developers have (and have not) been applying mocks, as well as the impact of such decisions in terms of coupling and software evolution can be used to help practitioners adapt and improve their future usage. To this aim, we study the usage of mock objects in three OSS projects and one industrial system. More specifically, we manually analyze more than 2,000 mock usages. We then discuss our findings with developers from these systems, and identify practices, rationales, and challenges. These results are supported by a structured survey with more than 100 professionals. Finally, we manually analyze how the usage of mock objects in test code evolve over time as well as the impact of their usage on the coupling between test and production code. Our study reveals that the usage of mocks is highly dependent on the responsibility and the architectural concern of the class. Developers report to frequently mock dependencies that make testing difficult (e.g., infrastructure-related dependencies) and to not mock classes that encapsulate domain concepts/rules of the system. Among the key challenges, developers report that maintaining the behavior of the mock compatible with the behavior of original class is hard and that mocking increases the coupling between the test and the production code. Their perceptions are confirmed by our data, as we observed that mocks mostly exist since the very first version of the test class, and that they tend to stay there for its whole lifetime, and that changes in production code often force the test code to also change.@en

Automated testing is considered an essential process for ensuring software quality. However, writing and maintaining high-quality test code is challenging and frequently considered of secondary importance. For production code, many open source and industrial software projects employ code review, a well-established software quality practice, but the question remains whether and how code review is also used for ensuring the quality of test code. The aim of this research is to answer this question and to increase our understanding of what developers think and do when it comes to reviewing test code. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze more than 300,000 code reviews, and interviewed 12 developers about how they review test files. This work resulted in an overview of current code reviewing practices, a set of identified obstacles limiting the review of test code, and a set of issues that developers would like to see improved in code review tools. The study reveals that reviewing test files is very different from reviewing production files, and that the navigation within the review itself is one of the main issues developers currently face. Based on our findings, we propose a series of recommendations and suggestions for the design of tools and future research.@en

When writing automated unit tests, developers often deal with software artifacts that have several dependencies. In these cases, one has the possibility of either instantiating the dependencies or using mock objects to simulate the dependencies' expected behavior. Even though recent quantitative studies showed that mock objects are widely used in OSS projects, scientific knowledge is still lacking on how and why practitioners use mocks. Such a knowledge is fundamental to guide further research on this widespread practice and inform the design of tools and processes to improve it. The objective of this paper is to increase our understanding of which test dependencies developers (do not) mock and why, as well as what challenges developers face with this practice. To this aim, we create MOCKEXTRACTOR, a tool to mine the usage of mock objects in testing code and employ it to collect data from three OSS projects and one industrial system. Sampling from this data, we manually analyze how more than 2,000 test dependencies are treated. Subsequently, we discuss our findings with developers from these systems, identifying practices, rationales, and challenges. These results are supported by a structured survey with more than 100 professionals. The study reveals that the usage of mocks is highly dependent on the responsibility and the architectural concern of the class. Developers report to frequently mock dependencies that make testing difficult and prefer to not mock classes that encapsulate domain concepts/rules of the system. Among the key challenges, developers report that maintaining the behavior of the mock compatible with the behavior of original class is hard and that mocking increases the coupling between the test and the production code.@en

Modern Code Review (MCR) is an established software development process that aims to improve software quality. Although evidence showed that higher levels of review coverage relates to less post-release bugs, it remains unknown the effectiveness of MCR at specifically finding security issues. We present a work we conduct aiming to fill that gap by exploring the MCR process in the Chromium open source project. We manually analyzed large sets of registered (114 cases) and missed (71 cases) security issues by backtracking in the project’s issue, review, and code histories. This enabled us to qualify MCR in Chromium from the security perspective from several angles: Are security issues being discussed frequently? What categories of security issues are often missed or found? What characteristics of code reviews appear relevant to the discovery rate?
Within the cases we analyzed, MCR in Chromium addresses security issues at a rate of 1% of reviewers’ comments. Chromium code reviews mostly tend to miss language-specific issues (e.g., C++ issues and buffer overflows) and domain-specific ones (e.g., such as Cross-Site Scripting); when code reviews address issues, mostly they address those that pertain to the latter type. Initial evidence points to reviews conducted by more than 2 reviewers being more successful at finding security issues.@en