TY - GEN
T1 - State of Refactoring Adoption
T2 - 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2023
AU - Abdullah Alomar, Eman
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 IEEE.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - We aim to explore how developers document their refactoring activities during the software life cycle. We call such activity Self-Affirmed Refactoring (SAR), which indicates developers' documentation of their refactoring activities. SAR is crucial in understanding various aspects of refactoring, including the motivation, procedure, and consequences of the performed code change. After that, we propose an approach to identify whether a commit describes developer-related refactoring events to classify them according to the refactoring common quality improvement categories. To complement this goal, we aim to reveal insights into how reviewers decide to accept or reject a submitted refactoring request and what makes such a review challenging.Our SAR taxonomy and model can work with refactoring detectors to report any early inconsistency between refactoring types and their documentation. They can serve as a solid background for various empirical investigations. Our survey with code reviewers has 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 from the industrial case study, we recommended a procedure to properly document refactoring activities, as part of our survey feedback.
AB - We aim to explore how developers document their refactoring activities during the software life cycle. We call such activity Self-Affirmed Refactoring (SAR), which indicates developers' documentation of their refactoring activities. SAR is crucial in understanding various aspects of refactoring, including the motivation, procedure, and consequences of the performed code change. After that, we propose an approach to identify whether a commit describes developer-related refactoring events to classify them according to the refactoring common quality improvement categories. To complement this goal, we aim to reveal insights into how reviewers decide to accept or reject a submitted refactoring request and what makes such a review challenging.Our SAR taxonomy and model can work with refactoring detectors to report any early inconsistency between refactoring types and their documentation. They can serve as a solid background for various empirical investigations. Our survey with code reviewers has 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 from the industrial case study, we recommended a procedure to properly document refactoring activities, as part of our survey feedback.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85166303842
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85166303842#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1109/MSR59073.2023.00090
DO - 10.1109/MSR59073.2023.00090
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85166303842
T3 - Proceedings - 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2023
SP - 635
EP - 639
BT - Proceedings - 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2023
Y2 - 15 May 2023 through 16 May 2023
ER -