An official website of the United States government
Block-based programming has been overwhelmingly successful in revitalizing introductory computing education and in facilitating end-user development. However, poor code quality makes block-based programs hard to understand, modify, and reuse, thus hurting the educational and productivity effectiveness of blocks. There is great potential benefit in empowering programmers in this domain to systematically improve the code quality of their projects. Refactoring--improving code quality while preserving its semantics--has been widely adopted in traditional software development. In this work, we introduce refactoring to Scratch. We define four new Scratch refactorings: Extract Custom Block, Extract Parent Sprite, Extract Constant, and Reduce Variable Scope. To automate the application of these refactorings, we enhance the Scratch programming environment with powerful program analysis and transformation routines. To evaluate the utility of these refactorings, we apply them to remove the code smells detected in a representative dataset of 448 Scratch projects. We also conduct a between-subjects user study with 24 participants to assess how our refactoring tools impact programmers. Our results show that refactoring improves the subjects' code quality metrics, while our refactoring tools help motivate programmers to improve code quality.
more »
« less
Behind the Intent of Extract Method Refactoring: A Systematic Literature Review
Background: Code refactoring is widely recognized as an essential software engineering practice to improve the understandability and maintainability of the source code. The Extract Method refactoring is considered as “Swiss army knife” of refactorings, as developers often apply it to improve their code quality, e.g., decompose long code fragments, reduce code complexity, eliminate duplicated code, etc. In recent years, several studies attempted to recommend Extract Method refactorings allowing the collection, analysis, and revelation of actionable data-driven insights about refactoring practices within software projects. Aim: In this paper, we aim at reviewing the current body of knowledge on existing Extract Method refactoring research and explore their limitations and potential improvement opportunities for future research efforts. That is, Extract Method is considered one of the most widely-used refactorings, but difficult to apply in practice as it involves low-level code changes such as statements, variables, parameters, return types, etc. Hence, researchers and practitioners begin to be aware of the state-of-the-art and identify new research opportunities in this context. Method: We review the body of knowledge related to Extract Method refactoring in the form of a systematic literature review (SLR). After compiling an initial pool of 1,367 papers, we conducted a systematic selection and our final pool included 83 primary studies. We define three sets of research questions and systematically develop and refine a classification schema based on several criteria including their methodology, applicability, and degree of automation. Results: The results construct a catalog of 83 Extract Method approaches indicating that several techniques have been proposed in the literature. Our results show that: (i) 38.6% of Extract Method refactoring studies primarily focus on addressing code clones; (ii) Several of the Extract Method tools incorporate the developer's involvement in the decision-making process when applying the method extraction, and (iii) the existing benchmarks are heterogeneous and do not contain the same type of information, making standardizing them for the purpose of benchmarking difficult. Conclusions: Our study serves as an “index” to the body of knowledge in this area for researchers and practitioners in determining the Extract Method refactoring approach that is most appropriate for their needs. Our findings also empower the community with information to guide the future development of refactoring tools.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2213765
- PAR ID:
- 10545710
- Publisher / Repository:
- IEEE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Volume:
- 50
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0098-5589
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 668 to 694
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- software engineering refactoring
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Traditionally, software refactoring helps to improve a system's internal structure and enhance its non-functional features, such as reliability and run-time performance, while preserving external behavior including original program semantics. However, in the context of learning-enabled software systems (LESS), e.g., Machine Learning (ML) systems, it is unclear which portions of a software's semantics require preservation at the development phase. This is mainly because (a) the behavior of the LESS is not defined until run-time; and (b) the inherently iterative and non-deterministic nature of ML algorithms. Consequently, there is a knowledge gap in what refactoring truly means in the context of LESS as such systems have no guarantee of a predetermined correct answer. We thus conjecture that to construct robust and safe LESS, it is imperative to understand the flexibility of refactoring LESS compared to traditional software and to measure it. In this paper, we introduce a novel conceptual framework named ReLESS for evaluating refactorings for supervised learning by (i) exploring the transformation methodologies taken by state-of-the-art LESS refactorings that focus on singular metrics, (ii) reviewing informal notions of semantics preservation and the level at which they occur (source code vs. trained model), and (iii) empirically comparing and contrasting existing LESS refactorings in the context of image classification problems. This framework will set the foundation to not only formalize a standard definition of semantics preservation in LESS but also combine four metrics: accuracy, run-time performance, robustness, and interpretability as a multi-objective optimization function, instead of a single-objective function used in existing works, to assess LESS refactorings. In the future, our work could seek reliable LESS refactorings that generalize over diverse systems.more » « less
-
Software applications and workloads, especially within the domains of Cloud computing and large-scale AI model training, exert considerable demand on computing resources, thus contributing significantly to the overall energy footprint of the IT industry. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of certain software coding practices that can play a substantial role in increasing the application’s overall energy consumption, primarily stemming from the suboptimal utilization of computing resources. Our study encompasses a thorough investigation of 16 distinct code smells and other coding malpractices across 31 real-world open-source applications written in Java and Python. Through our research, we provide compelling evidence that various common refactoring techniques, typically employed to rectify specific code smells, can unintentionally escalate the application’s energy consumption. We illustrate that a discerning and strategic approach to code smell refactoring can yield substantial energy savings. For selective refactorings, this yields a reduction of up to 13.1% of energy consumption and 5.1% of carbon emissions per workload on average. These findings underscore the potential of selective and intelligent refactoring to substantially increase energy efficiency of Cloud software systems.more » « less
-
Refactoring is the practice of improving software quality without altering its external behavior. Developers intuitively refactor their code for multiple purposes, such as improving program comprehension, reducing code complexity, dealing with technical debt, and removing code smells. However, no prior studies have exposed the students to an experience of the process of antipatterns detection and refactoring correction, and provided students with toolset to practice it. To understand and increase the awareness of refactoring concepts, in this paper, we aim to reflect on our experience with teaching refactoring and how it helps students become more aware of bad programming practices and the importance of correcting them via refactoring. This paper discusses the results of an experiment in the classroom that involved carrying out various refactoring activities for the purpose of removing antipatterns using JDeodorant, an IDE plugin that supports antipatterns detection and refactoring. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis with 171 students show that students tend to appreciate the idea of learning refactoring and are satisfied with various aspects of the JDeodorant plugin's operation. Through this experiment, refactoring can turn into a vital part of the computing educational plan. We envision our findings enabling educators to support students with refactoring tools tuned towards safer and trustworthy refactoring.more » « less
-
Dealing with merge conflicts in version control systems is a challenging task for software developers. Resolving merge conflicts is a time-consuming and error-prone process, which distracts developers from important tasks. Recent work shows that refactorings are often involved in merge conflicts and that refactoring-related conflicts tend to be larger, making them harder to resolve. In the literature, there are two refactoring-aware merging techniques that claim to automatically resolve refactoring-related conflicts; however, these two techniques have never been empirically compared. In this paper, we present RefMerge, a rejuvenated Java-based design and implementation of the first technique, which is an operation-based refactoring-aware merging algorithm. We compare RefMerge to Git and the state-of-the-art graph-based refactoring-aware merging tool, IntelliMerge, on 2,001 merge scenarios with refactoring-related conflicts from 20 open-source projects. We find that RefMerge resolves or reduces conflicts in 497 (25%) merge scenarios while increasing conflicting LOC in only 214 (11%) scenarios. On the other hand, we find that IntelliMerge resolves or reduces conflicts in 478 (24%) merge scenarios but increases conflicting LOC in 597 (30%) merge scenarios. We additionally conduct a qualitative analysis of the differences between the three merging algorithms and provide insights of the strengths and weaknesses of each tool. We find that while IntelliMerge does well with ordering and formatting conflicts, it struggles with class-level refactorings and scenarios with several refactorings. On the other hand, RefMerge is resilient to the number of refactorings in a merge scenario, but we find that RefMerge introduces conflicts when inverting move-related refactorings.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2023.3345800
