Custom declarative refactoring in NetBeans

Lahoda, Jan; Becicka, Jan; Ruijs, Ralph Benjamin

doi:10.1145/2328876.2328886

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even more flexibility is achieved by languages for scripting refactorings such as JunGL [39] or Jackpot [15], which allow programmers to implement their own custom refactorings. Given the effort involved in learning a new language and API, however, it seems unlikely that any but the most determined developers will use such systems on a regular basis.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refactoring with synthesis

Raychev

Schäfer

Sridharan

et al. 2013

Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages &Amp; Application

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Refactoring has become an integral part of modern software development, with wide support in popular integrated development environments (IDEs). Modern IDEs provide a fixed set of supported refactorings, listed in a refactoring menu. But with IDEs supporting more and more refactorings, it is becoming increasingly difficult for programmers to discover and memorize all their names and meanings. Also, since the set of refactorings is hard-coded, if a programmer wants to achieve a slightly different code transformation, she has to either apply a (possibly non-obvious) sequence of several built-in refactorings, or just perform the transformation by hand.We propose a novel synthesis system which addresses these limitations. Our system employs a recently proposed refactoring interface, in which a refactoring is achieved via three simple steps: the programmer first indicates the start of a code refactoring phase; then she performs some of the desired code changes manually; and finally, she asks the tool to complete the refactoring.Given the initial and modified programs, our synthesis system completes the refactoring by first extracting the difference between the starting program and the modified version, and then synthesizing a sequence of refactorings that achieves (at least) the desired changes. To enable scalable synthesis, we introduce local refactorings, which allow for first discovering a refactoring sequence on small program fragments and then extrapolating it to a full refactoring sequence.We implemented our approach as an Eclipse plug-in, with an architecture that is easily extendable with new refactorings. The experimental results are encouraging: with only minimal user input, the synthesizer was able to quickly discover complex refactoring sequences for several challenging realistic examples.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refactoring with synthesis

Raychev

Schäfer

Sridharan

et al. 2013

Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages &Amp; Application

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Refactoring tools like Jackpot [5] used specialized DSLs to express code analyses and transformations. These tools matched our needs much better than the simple canned refactorings, but had some problems: none of them could express Java generics constraints, they required users to learn a specialized and unfamiliar DSL, and none of them were built to scale.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scalable, example-based refactorings with refaster

Wasserman

2013

Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Workshop on Workshop on Refactoring Tools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss Refaster, a tool that uses normal, compilable before-and-after examples of Java code to specify a Java refactoring. Refaster has been used successfully by the Java Core Libraries Team at Google to perform a wide variety of refactorings across Google's massive Java codebase. Our main contribution is that a large class of useful refactorings can be expressed in pure Java, without a specialized DSL, while keeping the tool easily accessible to average Java developers.

show abstract

“…Refactoring has received a lot of attention in the OO programming community, with tools produced for Java, not only in Eclipse (Gallardo, n.d.) but also in other IDEs (NetBeans, n.d.;Lahoda et al, 2012); C# (ReSharper, n.d.) and Smalltalk (Roberts et al, 1997) among others. The applicability and use of these and other tools are compared in Katić & Fertalj (2009) and the general uptake and application of refactoring ideas and tools are evaluated in Ge et al (2012) and Vakilian et al (2012).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent versions of NetBeans include a facility to define custom 'declarative' refactorings (Lahoda et al, 2012), and these can be described by concrete syntax templates; what the system currently lacks is the ability to make new refactorings interactive and selective (as well as transactional), as provided by our DSL (Li & Thompson, 2012a). Another approach to specifying refactorings in a high-level way is given by Schaefer & de Moor (2010), where simpler micro-refactorings are put together subject to constraints to define whole refactorings.…”

Section: Case Study: Removal Of Error Macrosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refactoring tools for functional languages

Thompson¹,

Li²

2013

J. Funct. Prog.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Refactoring is the process of changing the design of a program without changing what it does. Typical refactorings, such as function extraction and generalisation, are intended to make a program more amenable to extension, more comprehensible and so on. Refactorings differ from other sorts of program transformation in being applied to source code, rather than to a 'core' language within a compiler, and also in having an effect across a code base, rather than to a single function definition, say. Because of this, there is a need to give automated support to the process. This paper reflects on our experience of building tools to refactor functional programs written in Haskell (HaRe) and Erlang (Wrangler). We begin by discussing what refactoring means for functional programming languages, first in theory, and then in the context of a larger example. Next, we address system design and details of system implementation as well as contrasting the style of refactoring and tooling for Haskell and Erlang. Building both tools led to reflections about what particular refactorings mean, as well as requiring analyses of various kinds, and we discuss both of these. We also discuss various extensions to the core tools, including integrating the tools with test frameworks; facilities for detecting and eliminating code clones; and facilities to make the systems extensible by users. We then reflect on our work by drawing some general conclusions, some of which apply particularly to functional languages, while many others are of general value.

show abstract

Custom declarative refactoring in NetBeans

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Refactoring with synthesis

Refactoring with synthesis

Scalable, example-based refactorings with refaster

Refactoring tools for functional languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About