Technical debt is a metaphor introduced by Cunningham to indicate “not quite right code which we postpone making it right”. One noticeable symptom of technical debt is represented by code smells, defined as symptoms of poor design and implementation choices. Previous studies showed the negative impact of code smells on the comprehensibility and maintainability of code. While the repercussions of smells on code quality have been empirically assessed, there is still only anecdotal evidence on when and why bad smells are introduced, what is their survivability , and how they are removed by developers. To empirically corroborate such anecdotal evidence, we conducted a large empirical study over the change history of 200 open source projects. This study required the development of a strategy to identify smell-introducing commits, the mining of over half a million of commits, and the manual analysis and classification of over 10K of them. Our findings mostly contradict common wisdom, showing that most of the smell instances are introduced when an artifact is created and not as a result of its evolution. At the same time, 80 percent of smells survive in the system. Also, among the 20 percent of removed instances, only 9 percent are removed as a direct consequence of refactoring operations.

When and Why Your Code Starts to Smell Bad (and Whether the Smells Go Away)

Several code smell detection tools have been developed providing different results, because smells can be subjectively interpreted, and hence detected, in different ways. In this paper, we perform the largest experiment of applying machine learning algorithms to code smells to the best of our knowledge. We experiment 16 different machine-learning algorithms on four code smells (Data Class, Large Class, Feature Envy, Long Method) and 74 software systems, with 1986 manually validated code smell samples. We found that all algorithms achieved high performances in the cross-validation data set, yet the highest performances were obtained by J48 and Random Forest, while the worst performance were achieved by support vector machines. However, the lower prevalence of code smells, i.e., imbalanced data, in the entire data set caused varying performances that need to be addressed in the future studies. We conclude that the application of machine learning to the detection of these code smells can provide high accuracy (>96 %), and only a hundred training examples are needed to reach at least 95 % accuracy.

Comparing and experimenting machine learning techniques for code smell detection

In past and recent years, the issues related to managing technical debt received significant attention by researchers from both industry and academia. There are several factors that contribute to technical debt. One of these is represented by code bad smells, i.e., symptoms of poor design and implementation choices. While the repercussions of smells on code quality have been empirically assessed, there is still only anecdotal evidence on when and why bad smells are introduced. To fill this gap, we conducted a large empirical study over the change history of 200 open source projects from different software ecosystems and investigated when bad smells are introduced by developers, and the circumstances and reasons behind their introduction. Our study required the development of a strategy to identify smell-introducing commits, the mining of over 0.5M commits, and the manual analysis of 9,164 of them (i.e., those identified as smell-introducing). Our findings mostly contradict common wisdom stating that smells are being introduced during evolutionary tasks. In the light of our results, we also call for the need to develop a new generation of recommendation systems aimed at properly planning smell refactoring activities.

/pdf/when-and-why-your-code-starts-to-smell-bad-2z660t13og.pdf

When and why your code starts to smell bad

Code smells are symptoms of poor design and implementation choices that may hinder code comprehensibility and maintainability. Despite the effort devoted by the research community in studying code smells, the extent to which code smells in software systems affect software maintainability remains still unclear. In this paper we present a large scale empirical investigation on the diffuseness of code smells and their impact on code change- and fault-proneness. The study was conducted across a total of 395 releases of 30 open source projects and considering 17,350 manually validated instances of 13 different code smell kinds. The results show that smells characterized by long and/or complex code (e.g., Complex Class) are highly diffused, and that smelly classes have a higher change- and fault-proneness than smell-free classes.

/pdf/on-the-diffuseness-and-the-impact-on-maintainability-of-code-1qdl19a68u.pdf

On the diffuseness and the impact on maintainability of code smells: a large scale empirical investigation

Evolution of software in automated production systems

Context: Code smells are assumed to indicate bad design that leads to less maintainable code. However, this assumption has not been investigated in controlled studies with professional software developers. Aim: This paper investigates the relationship between code smells and maintenance effort. Method: Six developers were hired to perform three maintenance tasks each on four functionally equivalent Java systems originally implemented by different companies. Each developer spent three to four weeks. In total, they modified 298 Java files in the four systems. An Eclipse IDE plug-in measured the exact amount of time a developer spent maintaining each file. Regression analysis was used to explain the effort using file properties, including the number of smells. Result: None of the 12 investigated smells was significantly associated with increased effort after we adjusted for file size and the number of changes; Refused Bequest was significantly associated with decreased effort. File size and the number of changes explained almost all of the modeled variation in effort. Conclusion: The effects of the 12 smells on maintenance effort were limited. To reduce maintenance effort, a focus on reducing code size and the work practices that limit the number of changes may be more beneficial than refactoring code smells.

A. Yamashita

Papers

Quantifying the Effect of Code Smells on Maintenance Effort