Online code clones are code fragments that are copied from software projects or online sources to Stack Overflow as examples. Due to an absence of a checking mechanism after the code has been copied to Stack Overflow, they can become toxic code snippets, e.g., they suffer from being outdated or violating the original software license. We present a study of online code clones on Stack Overflow and their toxicity by incorporating two developer surveys and a large-scale code clone detection. A survey of 201 high-reputation Stack Overflow answerers (33% response rate) showed that 131 participants (65%) have ever been notified of outdated code and 26 of them (20%) rarely or never fix the code. 138 answerers (69%) never check for licensing conflicts between their copied code snippets and Stack Overflow's CC BY-SA 3.0. A survey of 87 Stack Overflow visitors shows that they experienced several issues from Stack Overflow answers: mismatched solutions, outdated solutions, incorrect solutions, and buggy code. 85% of them are not aware of CC BY-SA 3.0 license enforced by Stack Overflow, and 66% never check for license conflicts when reusing code snippets. Our clone detection found online clone pairs between 72,365 Java code snippets on Stack Overflow and 111 open source projects in the curated Qualitas corpus. We analysed 2,289 non-trivial online clone candidates. Our investigation revealed strong evidence that 153 clones have been copied from a Qualitas project to Stack Overflow. We found 100 of them (66%) to be outdated, of which 10 were buggy and harmful for reuse. Furthermore, we found 214 code snippets that could potentially violate the license of their original software and appear 7,112 times in 2,427 GitHub projects.We performed an empirical study of online code clones between Stack Overflow and 111 Java open source projects 8. https://ucl-crest.github.io/cloverflow-web This is the author's version of an article that has been published in this journal. Changes were made to this version by the publisher prior to publication.The final version of record is available at http://dx.

Although considered one of the most important decisions in the software development lifecycle, empirical evidence on how developers perform and perceive architectural changes remains scarce. Architectural decisions have far-reaching consequences yet, we know relatively little about the level of developers' awareness of their changes' impact on the software's architecture. We also know little about whether architecture-related discussions between developers lead to better architectural changes. To provide a better understanding of these questions, we use the code review data from 7 open source systems to investigate developers' intent and awareness when performing changes alongside the evolution of the changes during the reviewing process. We extracted the code base of 18,400 reviews and 51,889 revisions. 4,171 of the reviews have changes in their computed architectural metrics, and 731 present significant changes to the architecture. We manually inspected all reviews that caused significant changes and found that developers are discussing the impact of their changes on the architectural structure in only 31% of the cases, suggesting a lack of awareness. Moreover, we noticed that in 73% of the cases in which developers provided architectural feedback during code review, the comments were addressed, where the final merged revision tended to exhibit higher architectural improvement than reviews in which the system's structure is not discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract