Design Defects Detection and Correction by Example

Kessentini, Marouane; Kessentini, Wael; Sahraoui, Houari; Boukadoum, Mounir; Ouni, Ali

doi:10.1109/icpc.2011.22

Cited by 85 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our previous work treats the detection and correction as two different steps. In this paper, we generate also new form of detection-correction rules that are completely different from [11].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both works do not need a formal definition of defects to detect them. In another work [11], we generate detection rules defined as combinations of metrics/thresholds that better conform to known instances of design defects (defect examples). Then, the correction solutions, a combination of refactoring operations, should minimize, as much as possible, the number of defects detected using the detection rules.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A New Design Defects Classification: Marrying Detection and Correction

Mahouachi¹,

Kessentini²,

Ghédira³

2012

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Previous work classify design defects based on symptoms (long methods, large classes, long parameter lists, etc.), and treat separately detection and correction steps. This paper introduces a new classification of defects using correction possibilities. Thus, correcting different code fragments appending to specific defect category need, approximately, the same refactoring operations to apply. To this end, we use genetic programming to generate new form of classification rules combining detection and correction steps. We report the results of our validation using different open-source systems. Our proposal achieved high precision and recall correction scores.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Design Defects Classification: Marrying Detection and Correction

Mahouachi¹,

Kessentini²,

Ghédira³

2012

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of detection approaches [10,16,21] exist for object-oriented (OO) antipatterns. However, OO approaches are not applicable to the detection of SOA antipatterns because: (1) SOA is concerned with services as building blocks, whereas OO is concerned with classes, i.e., services are coarser than classes in terms of granularity and (2) the highly dynamic nature of SOA compared to OO systems.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specification and Detection of SOA Antipatterns in Web Services

Palma

Moha

Tremblay

et al. 2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Service Based Systems, composed of Web Services (WSs), offer promising solutions to software development problems for companies. Like other software artefacts, WSs evolve due to the changed user requirements and execution contexts, which may introduce poor solutions-Antipatterns-may cause (1) degradation of design and quality of service (QoS) and (2) difficult maintenance and evolution. Thus, the automatic detection of antipatterns in WSs, which aims at evaluating their design and QoS requires attention. We propose SODA-W (Service Oriented Detection for Antipatterns in Web services), an approach supported by a framework for specifying and detecting antipatterns in WSs. Using SODA-W, we specify ten antipatterns, including God Object Web Service and Fine Grained Web Service, and perform their detection in two different corpora: (1) 13 weather-related and (2) 109 financial-related WSs. SODA-W can specify and detect antipatterns in WSs with an average precision of more than 75% and a recall of 100%.

show abstract

“…How does NSGA-III perform compared to mono-objective refactoring approaches [19][23]? It is important to determine if considering each conflicting metric as a separate objective to optimize performs better than a mono-objective approach that aggregates all metrics in one objective.…”

Section: Rq2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We implemented our approach and evaluated it on seven large open source systems and found that, on average, more than 92% of code smells were corrected. The statistical analysis of our experiments over 31 runs shows that NSGA-III performed significantly better than two other many-objective techniques (IBEA and MOEA/D), a multiobjective algorithm (NSGA-II) and two mono-objective approaches [19][23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High dimensional search-based software engineering

Mkaouer

Kessentini

Bechikh

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing need for scalable search-based software engineering approaches that address software engineering problems where a large number of objectives are to be optimized. Software refactoring is one of these problems where a refactoring sequence is sought that optimizes several software metrics. Most of the existing refactoring work uses a large set of quality metrics to evaluate the software design after applying refactoring operations, but current search-based software engineering approaches are limited to using a maximum of five metrics. We propose for the first time a scalable search-based software engineering approach based on a newly proposed evolutionary optimization method NSGA-III where there are 15 different objectives to be optimized. In our approach, automated refactoring solutions are evaluated using a set of 15 distinct quality metrics. We evaluated this approach on seven large open source systems and found that, on average, more than 92% of code smells were corrected. Statistical analysis of our experiments over 31 runs shows that NSGA-III performed significantly better than two other many-objective techniques (IBEA and MOEA/D), a multiobjective algorithm (NSGA-II) and two mono-objective approaches, hence demonstrating that our NSGA-III approach represents the new state of the art in fully-automated refactoring.

show abstract

Design Defects Detection and Correction by Example

Cited by 85 publications

References 12 publications

A New Design Defects Classification: Marrying Detection and Correction

A New Design Defects Classification: Marrying Detection and Correction

Specification and Detection of SOA Antipatterns in Web Services

High dimensional search-based software engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About