Supporting requirements to code traceability through refactoring

Using Naming Patterns for Identifying Architectural Technical Debt

“…The refactoring is a regular practice used in agile approaches, and is often applied on source code [1]; this contributes to the emergence of a successful architecture, improving the internal structure of the application, making the architectural elements more comprehensible, and avoiding the architecture decay, specially in them defined slightly [15,21]. Performing an incomplete refactoring is a cause of ATD that can insert part of ATD and generates new debt [2].…”

“…The refactoring can be performed manually, or semi or fully automatic. The fully automatic approach carry out the identification and transformation of code elements, nevertheless a human commits modifications [1,16]. This work enables a fully automatic refactoring, taking into account the identification by the proposed analysis, and applying a transformation through a renaming of classes.…”

“…This work enables a fully automatic refactoring, taking into account the identification by the proposed analysis, and applying a transformation through a renaming of classes. The last is a kind of global refactoring (i.e., affects classes in more than one package) [10] with API level (Application Programming Interface) [30], which is often used automatically in programming environments [8,30] with aims of organization and conceptualization [25], standing out over other refactoring forms by supporting the software traceability [1].…”

Semantic hierarchies for extracting, modeling, and connecting compliance requirements in information security control standards

“…They use an incremental model-checking approach based on evolving statecharts to state logical properties and compare them against a system model during agile development. Mahmoud and Niu [63] focus on refactoring techniques that recover structural vocabulary terms to improve information retrieval (IR)-based traceability techniques that span code, tests, and requirements. Their approach works by making textual artifacts more normative through systematic refactoring using three operations (Rename Identifier, Move Method, eXtract Method) adapted from other in IR-based approaches.…”

“…Multiple research efforts [61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] have explored how formalized security requirements and formal methods used in the design process can be translated into developer-friendly tools for use during product implementation. Generally, these approaches focus on providing traceability from requirements to code to test cases [61][62][63], weakness, threat, and vulnerability repositories knowledge re-use for risk assessment and mitigation [64][65][66], and tool support for certification [67,68]. Keeping code traceable to the requirements that generated it to the test cases that assess whether those requirements are satisfied or not is the central focus of many efforts within the requirements engineering community.…”