Dario Di Nucci

Bio: Dario Di Nucci is an academic researcher from Tilburg University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Computer science & Source code. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 52 publications receiving 886 citations. Previous affiliations of Dario Di Nucci include University of Salerno & Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Detecting code smells using machine learning techniques: Are we there yet?

Abstract: Code smells are symptoms of poor design and implementation choices weighing heavily on the quality of produced source code. During the last decades several code smell detection tools have been proposed. However, the literature shows that the results of these tools can be subjective and are intrinsically tied to the nature and approach of the detection. In a recent work the use of Machine-Learning (ML) techniques for code smell detection has been proposed, possibly solving the issue of tool subjectivity giving to a learner the ability to discern between smelly and non-smelly source code elements. While this work opened a new perspective for code smell detection, it only considered the case where instances affected by a single type smell are contained in each dataset used to train and test the machine learners. In this work we replicate the study with a different dataset configuration containing instances of more than one type of smell. The results reveal that with this configuration the machine learning techniques reveal critical limitations in the state of the art which deserve further research.

A Developer Centered Bug Prediction Model

Abstract: Several techniques have been proposed to accurately predict software defects. These techniques generally exploit characteristics of the code artefacts (e.g., size, complexity, etc.) and/or of the process adopted during their development and maintenance (e.g., the number of developers working on a component) to spot out components likely containing bugs. While these bug prediction models achieve good levels of accuracy, they mostly ignore the major role played by human-related factors in the introduction of bugs. Previous studies have demonstrated that focused developers are less prone to introduce defects than non-focused developers. According to this observation, software components changed by focused developers should also be less error prone than components changed by less focused developers. We capture this observation by measuring the scattering of changes performed by developers working on a component and use this information to build a bug prediction model. Such a model has been evaluated on 26 systems and compared with four competitive techniques. The achieved results show the superiority of our model, and its high complementarity with respect to predictors commonly used in the literature. Based on this result, we also show the results of a “hybrid” prediction model combining our predictors with the existing ones.

Software-based energy profiling of Android apps: Simple, efficient and reliable?

Abstract: Modeling the power profile of mobile applications is a crucial activity to identify the causes behind energy leaks. To this aim, researchers have proposed hardware-based tools as well as model-based and software-based techniques to approximate the actual energy profile. However, all these solutions present their own advantages and disadvantages. Hardware-based tools are highly precise, but at the same time their use is bound to the acquisition of costly hardware components. Model-based tools require the calibration of parameters needed to correctly create a model on a specific hardware device. Software-based approaches do not need any hardware components, but they rely on battery measurements and, thus, they are hardware-assisted. These tools are cheaper and easier to use than hardware-based tools, but they are believed to be less precise. In this paper, we take a deeper look at the pros and cons of software-based solutions investigating to what extent their measurements depart from hardware-based solutions. To this aim, we propose a software-based tool named PETRA that we compare with the hardware-based MONSOON toolkit on 54 Android apps. The results show that PETRA performs similarly to MONSOON despite not using any sophisticated hardware components. In fact, in all the apps the mean relative error with respect to MONSOON is lower than 0.05. Moreover, for 95% of the analyzed methods the estimation error is within 5% of the actual values measured using the hardware-based toolkit.

Lightweight detection of Android-specific code smells: The aDoctor project

Abstract: Code smells are symptoms of poor design solutions applied by programmers during the development of software systems. While the research community devoted a lot of effort to studying and devising approaches for detecting the traditional code smells defined by Fowler, little knowledge and support is available for an emerging category of Mobile app code smells. Recently, Reimann et al. proposed a new catalogue of Android-specific code smells that may be a threat for the maintainability and the efficiency of Android applications. However, current tools working in the context of Mobile apps provide limited support and, more importantly, are not available for developers interested in monitoring the quality of their apps. To overcome these limitations, we propose a fully automated tool, coined ADOCTOR, able to identify 15 Android-specific code smells from the catalogue by Reimann et al. An empirical study conducted on the source code of 18 Android applications reveals that the proposed tool reaches, on average, 98% of precision and 98% of recall. We made ADOCTOR publicly available.

On the impact of code smells on the energy consumption of mobile applications

Abstract: Context. The demand for green software design is steadily growing higher especially in the context of mobile devices, where the computation is often limited by battery life. Previous studies found how wrong programming solutions have a strong impact on the energy consumption. Objective. Despite the efforts spent so far, only a little knowledge on the influence of code smells, i.e.,symptoms of poor design or implementation choices, on the energy consumption of mobile applications is available. Method. To provide a wider overview on the relationship between smells and energy efficiency, in this paper we conducted a large-scale empirical study on the influence of 9 Android-specific code smells on the energy consumption of 60 Android apps. In particular, we focus our attention on the design flaws that are theoretically supposed to be related to non-functional attributes of source code, such as performance and energy consumption. Results. The results of the study highlight that methods affected by four code smell types, i.e.,Internal Setter, Leaking Thread, Member Ignoring Method, and Slow Loop, consume up to 87 times more than methods affected by other code smells. Moreover, we found that refactoring these code smells reduces energy consumption in all of the situations. Conclusions. Based on our findings, we argue that more research aimed at designing automatic refactoring approaches and tools for mobile apps is needed.

Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning

Abstract: Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Abstract: From the Book: “Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons: Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). In Test-Driven Development, you: Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication. Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming: 1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first 2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process 3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra. Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications: If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage. Courage Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects: Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and: Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet. The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test. Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately. That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress. There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code. Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to: Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time This book is organized into three sections. An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples. I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference. Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read. A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.