Measuring and Tracking Code Quality in ROS

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Pitzer
Keyword(s):  
Code Quality

scholarly journals Two-Pass Technique for Clone Detection and Type Classification Using Tree-Based Convolution Neural Network

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (14) ◽  
pp. 6613
Author(s):  
Young-Bin Jo ◽  
Jihyun Lee ◽  
Cheol-Jung Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Average Rate ◽  
Convolution Neural Network ◽  
Clone Detection ◽  
Code Clones ◽  
Classification Technique ◽  
Development Costs ◽  
Code Quality ◽  
Type Information ◽  
Type Classification

Appropriate reliance on code clones significantly reduces development costs and hastens the development process. Reckless cloning, in contrast, reduces code quality and ultimately adds costs and time. To avoid this scenario, many researchers have proposed methods for clone detection and refactoring. The developed techniques, however, are only reliably capable of detecting clones that are either entirely identical or that only use modified identifiers, and do not provide clone-type information. This paper proposes a two-pass clone classification technique that uses a tree-based convolution neural network (TBCNN) to detect multiple clone types, including clones that are not wholly identical or to which only small changes have been made, and automatically classify them by type. Our method was validated with BigCloneBench, a well-known and wildly used dataset of cloned code. Our experimental results validate that our technique detected clones with an average rate of 96% recall and precision, and classified clones with an average rate of 78% recall and precision.

scholarly journals The Relation of Test-Related Factors to Software Quality: A Case Study on Apache Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiano Pecorelli ◽  
Fabio Palomba ◽  
Andrea De Lucia
Keyword(s):  
Software Quality ◽  
Compelling Evidence ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Code Coverage ◽  
Production Code ◽  
Software Code ◽  
Class Test ◽  
Code Quality ◽  
Lack Of Knowledge

AbstractTesting represents a crucial activity to ensure software quality. Recent studies have shown that test-related factors (e.g., code coverage) can be reliable predictors of software code quality, as measured by post-release defects. While these studies provided initial compelling evidence on the relation between tests and post-release defects, they considered different test-related factors separately: as a consequence, there is still a lack of knowledge of whether these factors are still good predictors when considering all together. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive case study on how test-related factors relate to production code quality in Apache systems. We first investigated how the presence of tests relates to post-release defects; then, we analyzed the role played by the test-related factors previously shown as significantly related to post-release defects. The key findings of the study show that, when controlling for other metrics (e.g., size of the production class), test-related factors have a limited connection to post-release defects.

Why Do Developers Reject Refactorings in Open-Source Projects?

2022 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Jevgenija Pantiuchina ◽  
Bin Lin ◽  
Fiorella Zampetti ◽  
Massimiliano Di Penta ◽  
Michele Lanza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Software Quality ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Code Review ◽  
Code Quality ◽  
Shed Light

Refactoring operations are behavior-preserving changes aimed at improving source code quality. While refactoring is largely considered a good practice, refactoring proposals in pull requests are often rejected after the code review. Understanding the reasons behind the rejection of refactoring contributions can shed light on how such contributions can be improved, essentially benefiting software quality. This article reports a study in which we manually coded rejection reasons inferred from 330 refactoring-related pull requests from 207 open-source Java projects. We surveyed 267 developers to assess their perceived prevalence of these identified rejection reasons, further complementing the reasons. Our study resulted in a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 26 refactoring-related rejection reasons and 21 process-related rejection reasons. The taxonomy, accompanied with representative examples and highlighted implications, provides developers with valuable insights on how to ponder and polish their refactoring contributions, and indicates a number of directions researchers can pursue toward better refactoring recommenders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document