Code smells are poor implementation choices applied by developers during software evolution that often lead to critical flaws or failure. Much in the same way, community smells reflect the presence of organizational and socio-Technical issues within a software community that may lead to additional project costs. Recent empirical studies provide evidence that community smells are often-if not always-connected to circumstances such as code smells. In this paper we look deeper into this connection by conducting a mixed-methods empirical study of 117 releases from 9 open-source systems. The qualitative and quantitative sides of our mixed-methods study were run in parallel and assume a mutually-confirmative connotation. On the one hand, we survey 162 developers of the 9 considered systems to investigate whether developers perceive relationship between community smells and the code smells found in those projects. On the other hand, we perform a fine-grained analysis into the 117 releases of our dataset to measure the extent to which community smells impact code smell intensity (i.e., criticality). We then propose a code smell intensity prediction model that relies on both technical and community-related aspects. The results of both sides of our mixed-methods study lead to one conclusion: community-related factors contribute to the intensity of code smells. This conclusion supports the joint use of community and code smells detection as a mechanism for the joint management of technical and social problems around software development communities.

@en

Code smells are symptoms of poor design and implementation choices. Previous studies empirically assessed the impact of smells on code quality and clearly indicate their negative impact on maintainability, including a higher bug-proneness of components affected by code smells. In this paper, we capture previous findings on bug-proneness to build a specialized bug prediction model for smelly classes. Specifically, we evaluate the contribution of a measure of the severity of code smells (i.e., code smell intensity) by adding it to existing bug prediction models based on both product and process metrics, and comparing the results of the new model against the baseline models. Results indicate that the accuracy of a bug prediction model increases by adding the code smell intensity as predictor. We also compare the results achieved by the proposed model with the ones of an alternative technique which considers metrics about the history of code smells in files, finding that our model works generally better. However, we observed interesting complementarities between the set of buggy and smelly classes correctly classified by the two models. By evaluating the actual information gain provided by the intensity index with respect to the other metrics in the model, we found that the intensity index is a relevant feature for both product and process metrics-based models. At the same time, the metric counting the average number of code smells in previous versions of a class considered by the alternative model is also able to reduce the entropy of the model. On the basis of this result, we devise and evaluate a smell-aware combined bug prediction model that included product, process, and smell-related features. We demonstrate how such model classifies bug-prone code components with an F-Measure at least 13 percent higher than the existing state-of-the-art models.

@en

Code smells are symptoms of poor design or implementation choices that have a negative effect on several aspects of software maintenance and evolution, such as program comprehension or change- and fault-proneness. This is why researchers have spent a lot of effort on devising methods that help developers to automatically detect them in source code. Almost all the techniques presented in literature are based on the analysis of structural properties extracted from source code, although alternative sources of information (e.g., textual analysis) for code smell detection have also been recently investigated. Nevertheless, some studies have indicated that code smells detected by existing tools based on the analysis of structural properties are generally ignored (and thus not refactored) by the developers. In this paper, we aim at understanding whether code smells detected using textual analysis are perceived and refactored by developers in the same or different way than code smells detected through structural analysis. To this aim, we set up two different experiments. We have first carried out a software repository mining study to analyze how developers act on textually or structurally detected code smells. Subsequently, we have conducted a user study with industrial developers and quality experts in order to qualitatively analyze how they perceive code smells identified using the two different sources of information. Results indicate that textually detected code smells are easier to identify and for this reason they are considered easier to refactor with respect to code smells detected using structural properties. On the other hand, the latter are often perceived as more severe, but more difficult to exactly identify and remove.

@en

Code smells are symptoms of poor design and implementation choices that may hinder code comprehensibility and maintainability. Despite the effort devoted by the research community in studying code smells, the extent to which code smells in software systems affect software maintainability remains still unclear. In this paper we present a large scale empirical investigation on the diffuseness of code smells and their impact on code change- and fault-proneness. The study was conducted across a total of 395 releases of 30 open source projects and considering 17,350 manually validated instances of 13 different code smell kinds. The results show that smells characterized by long and/or complex code (e.g., Complex Class) are highly diffused, and that smelly classes have a higher change- and fault-proneness than smell-free classes.

@en

Refactoring aims at improving the internal structure of a software system without changing its external behavior. Previous studies empirically assessed, on the one hand, the benefits of refactoring in terms of code quality and developers’
productivity, and on the other hand, the underlying reasons that push programmers to apply refactoring. Results achieved in the latter investigations indicate that besides personal motivation such as the responsibility concerned with code authorship, refactoring is mainly performed as a consequence of changes in the requirements rather than driven by software quality. However,
these findings have been derived by surveying developers, and therefore no software repository study has been carried out to corroborate the achieved findings. To bridge this gap, we provide a quantitative investigation on the relationship between different types of code changes (i.e., Fault Repairing Modification, Feature Introduction Modification, and General Maintenance Modification) and 28 different refactoring types coming from 3 open source projects. Results showed that developers tend to apply a higher number of refactoring operations aimed at improving maintainability and comprehensibility of the source code when fixing bugs. Instead, when new features are implemented, more complex refactoring operations are performed to improve code cohesion. Most of the times, the underlying reasons behind the application of such refactoring operations are represented by the presence of duplicate code or previously introduced self-admitted technical debts.@en

Test case generation tools that optimize code coverage have been extensively investigated. Recently, researchers have suggested to add other non-coverage criteria, such as mem- ory consumption or readability, to increase the practical use- fulness of generated tests. In this paper, we observe that test code quality metrics, and test cohesion and coupling in particular, are valuable candidates as additional criteria. Indeed, tests with low cohesion and/or high coupling have been shown to have a negative impact on future mainte- nance activities. In an exploratory investigation we show that most generated tests are indeed affected by poor test code quality. For this reason, we incorporate cohesion and coupling metrics into the main loop of search-based algo- rithm for test case generation. Through an empirical study we show that our approach is not only able to generate tests that are more cohesive and less coupled, but can (i) increase branch coverage up to 10% when enough time is given to the search and (ii) result in statistically shorter tests.@en

Information Retrieval (IR) approaches are nowadays used to support various software engineering tasks, such as feature location, traceability link recovery, clone detection, or refactoring. However, previous studies showed that inadequate instantiation of an IR technique and underlying process could significantly affect the performance of such approaches in terms of precision and recall. This paper proposes the use of Genetic Algorithms (GAs) to automatically configure and assemble an IR process for software engineering tasks. The approach (named GA-IR) determines the (near) optimal solution to be used for each stage of the IR process, i.e., term extraction, stop word removal, stemming, indexing and an IR algebraic method calibration. We applied GA-IR on two different software engineering tasks, namely traceability link recovery and identification of duplicate bug reports. The results of the study indicate that GA-IR outperforms approaches previously published in the literature, and that it does not significantly differ from an ideal upper bound that could be achieved by a supervised and combinatorial approach. @en

In this paper, we present TACO (Textual Analysis for Code Smell Detection), a technique that exploits textual analysis to detect a family of smells of different nature and different levels of granularity. We run TACO on 10 open source projects, comparing its performance with existing smell detectors purely based on structural information extracted from code components. The analysis of the results indicates that TACO's precision ranges between 67% and 77%, while its recall ranges between 72% and 84%. Also, TACO often outperforms alternative structural approaches confirming, once again, the usefulness of information that can be derived from the textual part of code components.@en

In this paper, we formalize the defect-prediction problem as a multiobjective optimization problem. Specifically, we propose an approach, coined as multiobjective defect predictor (MODEP), based on multiobjective forms of machine learning techniques - logistic regression and decision trees specifically - trained using a genetic algorithm. The multiobjective approach allows software engineers to choose predictors achieving a specific compromise between the number of likely defect-prone classes or the number of defects that the analysis would likely discover (effectiveness), and lines of code to be analysed/tested (which can be considered as a proxy of the cost of code inspection). Results of an empirical evaluation on 10 datasets from the PROMISE repository indicate the quantitative superiority of MODEP with respect to single-objective predictors, and with respect to trivial baseline ranking classes by size in ascending or descending order. Also, MODEP outperforms an alternative approach for cross-project prediction, based on local prediction upon clusters of similar classes.

@en

A way to reduce the cost of regression testing consists of selecting or prioritizing subsets of test cases from a test suite according to some criteria. Besides greedy algorithms, cost cognizant additional greedy algorithms, multi-objective optimization algorithms, and multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGAs), have also been proposed to tackle this problem. However, previous studies have shown that there is no clear winner between greedy and MOGAs, and that their combination does not necessarily produce better results. In this paper we show that the optimality of MOGAs can be significantly improved by diversifying the solutions (sub-sets of the test suite) generated during the search process. Specifically, we introduce a new MOGA, coined as DIversity based Genetic Algorithm (DIV-GA), based on the mechanisms of orthogonal design and orthogonal evolution that increase diversity by injecting new orthogonal individuals during the search process. Results of an empirical study conducted on eleven programs show that DIV-GA outperforms both greedy algorithms and the traditional MOGAs from the optimality point of view. Moreover, the solutions (sub-sets of the test suite) provided by DIV-GA are able to detect more faults than the other algorithms, while keeping the same test execution cost.@en

Feature location is a fundamental step in software evolution tasks such as debugging, understanding, and reuse. Numerous automated and semi-automated feature location techniques (FLTs) have been proposed, but the question remains: How do we objectively determine which FLT is most effective? Existing evaluations frequently use bug fix data, which includes the location of the fix, but not what other code needs to be understood to make the fix. Existing evaluation measures such as precision, recall, effectiveness, mean average precision (MAP), and mean reciprocal rank (MRR) will not differentiate between a FLT that ranks higher these related elements over completely irrelevant ones. We propose an alternative measure of relevance based on the likelihood of a developer finding the bug fix locations from a ranked list of results. Our initial evaluation shows that by modeling user behavior, our proposed evaluation methodology can compare and evaluate FLTs fairly.

@en