2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/saner.2016.45
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding the Evolution of Code Smells by Observing Code Smell Clusters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Looking at the results, we can observe that for all the code smells but Misplaced Class technical control factors such as LOC, CBO, Code Churn, and number of commits between two releases are the ones that more closely influence the code smell intensity. These results were quite expected, since previous work has shown there exist technical aspects of source code (e.g., LOC) that "naturally" influence the evolution of code smells [115], [116]. At the same time, also the previous intensity of a code smell plays an important role when explaining the future intensity: likely, this is a reflection of the fact that developers generally tend to not refactor code smells and, when they do, the refactoring is most of the times not effective [13], thus increasing the intensity of smells over time.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Looking at the results, we can observe that for all the code smells but Misplaced Class technical control factors such as LOC, CBO, Code Churn, and number of commits between two releases are the ones that more closely influence the code smell intensity. These results were quite expected, since previous work has shown there exist technical aspects of source code (e.g., LOC) that "naturally" influence the evolution of code smells [115], [116]. At the same time, also the previous intensity of a code smell plays an important role when explaining the future intensity: likely, this is a reflection of the fact that developers generally tend to not refactor code smells and, when they do, the refactoring is most of the times not effective [13], thus increasing the intensity of smells over time.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Looking at the results in Table 1, we observe that for all the code smells but Misplaced Class traditional metrics such as LOC, CBO, and Code Churn influence the code smell intensity most. These results were quite expected given the importance of LOC for evolution of code smells [11]. Also the previous intensity of a smell is important: likely, this is caused by developers rarely refactoring code smells [1], thus increasing the intensity of smells over time.…”
Section: Statistical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…It was analyzed that the differences in the similarity index were 30% that occurred when compared versions of code segments. Tahmid, A et al,2016 [21] aimed to identify the development of the code smell in S/W by observing the behavior of the clusters like as size, quantity and connectivity. The clusters and its features were examined.…”
Section: Smell 5: Test Code Doublingmentioning
confidence: 99%