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.

Test Driven Development: By Example

The main reason behind failure of lots of software is poor quality thus estimation software quality become an important task in software industry. An early estimation towards pre-released software quality plays an important role in increasing probability of project success. By analyzing the metric data we can forecast the quality of the object oriented system. Software metrics are necessary to identify where the resources are needed; they are a crucial source of information for decision making. This paper represents proposed model for estimation quality of software product.

A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment

Sentiment analysis has been applied to various software engineering (SE) tasks, such as evaluating app reviews or analyzing developers' emotions in commit messages. Studies indicate that sentiment analysis tools provide unreliable results when used out-of-the-box, since they are not designed to process SE datasets. The silver bullet for a successful application of sentiment analysis tools to SE datasets might be their customization to the specific usage context. We describe our experience in building a software library recommender exploiting developers' opinions mined from Stack Overflow. To reach our goal, we retrained---on a set of 40k manually labeled sentences/words extracted from Stack Overflow---a state-of-the-art sentiment analysis tool exploiting deep learning. Despite such an effort- and time-consuming training process, the results were negative. We changed our focus and performed a thorough investigation of the accuracy of commonly used tools to identify the sentiment of SE related texts. Meanwhile, we also studied the impact of different datasets on tool performance. Our results should warn the research community about the strong limitations of current sentiment analysis tools.

Sentiment analysis for software engineering: how far can we go?

The presence of code and design smells can have a severe impact on the quality of a program. Consequently, their detection and correction have drawn the attention of both researchers and practitioners who have proposed various approaches to detect code and design smells in programs. However, none of these approaches handle the inherent uncertainty of the detection process. We propose a Bayesian approach to manage this uncertainty. First, we present a systematic process to convert existing state-of-the-art detection rules into a probabilistic model. We illustrate this process by generating a model to detect occurrences of the Blob antipattern. Second, we present results of the validation of the model: we built this model on two open-source programs, GanttProject v1.10.2 and Xerces v2.7.0, and measured its accuracy. Third, we compare our model with another approach to show that it returns the same candidate classes while ordering them to minimise the quality analysts' effort. Finally, we show that when past detection results are available, our model can be calibrated using machine learning techniques to offer an improved, context-specific detection.

A GQM-based Method and a Bayesian Approach for the Detection of Code and Design Smells

The metaphor of technical debt was introduced to express the trade off between productivity and quality, i.e., when developers take shortcuts or perform quick hacks. More recently, our work has shown that it is possible to detect technical debt using source code comments (i.e., self-admitted technical debt), and that the most common types of self-admitted technical debt are design and requirement debt. However, all approaches thus far heavily depend on the manual classification of source code comments. In this paper, we present an approach to automatically identify design and requirement self-admitted technical debt using Natural Language Processing (NLP). We study 10 open source projects: Ant, ArgoUML, Columba, EMF, Hibernate, JEdit, JFreeChart, JMeter, JRuby and SQuirrel SQL and find that 1) we are able to accurately identify self-admitted technical debt, significantly outperforming the current state-of-the-art based on fixed keywords and phrases; 2) words related to sloppy code or mediocre source code quality are the best indicators of design debt, whereas words related to the need to complete a partially implemented requirement in the future are the best indicators of requirement debt; and 3) we can achieve 90 percent of the best classification performance, using as little as 23 percent of the comments for both design and requirement self-admitted technical debt, and 80 percent of the best performance, using as little as 9 and 5 percent of the comments for design and requirement self-admitted technical debt, respectively. The last finding shows that the proposed approach can achieve a good accuracy even with a relatively small training dataset.

Using Natural Language Processing to Automatically Detect Self-Admitted Technical Debt

Static analysis tools are often used by software developers to entail early detection of potential faults, vulnerabilities, code smells, or to assess the source code adherence to coding standards and guidelines. Also, their adoption within Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines has been advocated by researchers and practitioners. This paper studies the usage of static analysis tools in 20 Java open source projects hosted on GitHub and using Travis CI as continuous integration infrastructure. Specifically, we investigate (i) which tools are being used and how they are configured for the CI, (ii) what types of issues make the build fail or raise warnings, and (iii) whether, how, and after how long are broken builds and warnings resolved. Results indicate that in the analyzed projects build breakages due to static analysis tools are mainly related to adherence to coding standards, and there is also some attention to missing licenses. Build failures related to tools identifying potential bugs or vulnerabilities occur less frequently, and in some cases such tools are activated in a "softer" mode, without making the build fail. Also, the study reveals that build breakages due to static analysis tools are quickly fixed by actually solving the problem, rather than by disabling the warning, and are often properly documented.

How open source projects use static code analysis tools in continuous integration pipelines

Bug reports document unexpected software behaviors experienced by users. To be effective, they should allow bug triagers to easily understand and reproduce the potential reported bugs, by clearly describing the Observed Behavior (OB), the Steps to Reproduce (S2R), and the Expected Behavior (EB). Unfortunately, while considered extremely useful, reporters often miss such pieces of information in bug reports and, to date, there is no effective way to automatically check and enforce their presence. We manually analyzed nearly 3k bug reports to understand to what extent OB, EB, and S2R are reported in bug reports and what discourse patterns reporters use to describe such information. We found that (i) while most reports contain OB (i.e., 93.5%), only 35.2% and 51.4% explicitly describe EB and S2R, respectively; and (ii) reporters recurrently use 154 discourse patterns to describe such content. Based on these findings, we designed and evaluated an automated approach to detect the absence (or presence) of EB and S2R in bug descriptions. With its best setting, our approach is able to detect missing EB (S2R) with 85.9% (69.2%) average precision and 93.2% (83%) average recall. Our approach intends to improve bug descriptions quality by alerting reporters about missing EB and S2R at reporting time.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3106237.3106285

Detecting missing information in bug descriptions

Informal documentation contained in resources such as QA (ii) assessing the ability of POME to detect the polarity of sentences, as compared to sentiment-analysis tools; (iii) comparing POME with the state-of-the-art Stack Overflow opinion mining approach, Opiner, through a study involving 24 human evaluators. Our study shows that POME exhibits a higher precision than a state-of-the-art technique (Opiner), in terms of both opinion aspect identification and polarity assessment.

Pattern-based mining of opinions in Q&A websites

Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) are widespread in both industrial and open-source software (OSS) projects. Recent research characterized build failures in CI and identified factors potentially correlated to them. However, most observations and findings of previous work are exclusively based on OSS projects or data from a single industrial organization. This paper provides a first attempt to compare the CI processes and occurrences of build failures in 349 Java OSS projects and 418 projects from a financial organization, ING Nederland. Through the analysis of 34,182 failing builds (26% of the total number of observed builds), we derived a taxonomy of failures that affect the observed CI processes. Using cluster analysis, we observed that in some cases OSS and ING projects share similar build failure patterns (e.g., few compilation failures as compared to frequent testing failures), while in other cases completely different patterns emerge. In short, we explain how OSS and ING CI processes exhibit commonalities, yet are substantially different in their design and in the failures they report.

/pdf/a-tale-of-ci-build-failures-an-open-source-and-a-financial-2j53y2xurf.pdf

Fiorella Zampetti

Papers

Sentiment analysis for software engineering: how far can we go?

How open source projects use static code analysis tools in continuous integration pipelines

Detecting missing information in bug descriptions

Pattern-based mining of opinions in Q&A websites

A Tale of CI Build Failures: An Open Source and a Financial Organization Perspective