物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

Aspect] is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ's dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

An overview of AspectJ

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

Since debugging is a time-consuming activity, automated program repair tools such as GenProg have garnered interest A recent study revealed that the majority of GenProg repairs avoid bugs simply by deleting functionality We found that SPR, a state-of-the-art repair tool proposed in 2015, still deletes functionality in their many "plausible" repairs Unlike generate-and-validate systems such as GenProg and SPR, semantic analysis based repair techniques synthesize a repair based on semantic information of the program While such semantics-based repair methods show promise in terms of quality of generated repairs, their scalability has been a concern so far In this paper, we present Angelix, a novel semantics-based repair method that scales up to programs of similar size as are handled by search-based repair tools such as GenProg and SPR This shows that Angelix is more scalable than previously proposed semantics based repair methods such as SemFix and DirectFix Furthermore, our repair method can repair multiple buggy locations that are dependent on each other Such repairs are hard to achieve using SPR and GenProg In our experiments, Angelix generated repairs from large-scale real-world software such as wireshark and php, and these generated repairs include multi-location repairs We also report our experience in automatically repairing the well-known Heartbleed vulnerability

/pdf/angelix-scalable-multiline-program-patch-synthesis-via-1loaty358w.pdf

Angelix: scalable multiline program patch synthesis via symbolic analysis

Mutation testing realizes the idea of using artificial defects to support testing activities. Mutation is typically used as a way to evaluate the adequacy of test suites, to guide the generation of test cases, and to support experimentation. Mutation has reached a maturity phase and gradually gains popularity both in academia and in industry. This chapter presents a survey of recent advances, over the past decade, related to the fundamental problems of mutation testing and sets out the challenges and open problems for the future development of the method. It also collects advices on best practices related to the use of mutation in empirical studies of software testing. Thus, giving the reader a “mini-handbook”-style roadmap for the application of mutation testing as experimental methodology.

/pdf/mutation-testing-advances-an-analysis-and-survey-2wtvd7tjwe.pdf

Mutation Testing Advances: An Analysis and Survey

Code comments are important artifacts in software. Javadoc comments are widely used in Java for API specifications. API developers write Javadoc comments, and API users read these comments to understand the API, e.g., reading a Javadoc comment for a method instead of reading the method body. An inconsistency between the Javadoc comment and body for a method indicates either a fault in the body or, effectively, a fault in the comment that can mislead the method callers to introduce faults in their code. We present a novel approach, called @TCOMMENT, for testing Javadoc comments, specifically method properties about null values and related exceptions. Our approach consists of two components. The first component takes as input source files for a Java project and automatically analyzes the English text in Javadoc comments to infer a set of likely properties for a method in the files. The second component generates random tests for these methods, checks the inferred properties, and reports inconsistencies. We evaluated @TCOMMENT on seven open-source projects and found 29 inconsistencies between Javadoc comments and method bodies. We reported 16 of these inconsistencies, and 5 have already been confirmed and fixed by the developers.

@tComment: Testing Javadoc Comments to Detect Comment-Code Inconsistencies

Search-based program repair automatically searches for a program fix within a given repair space. This may be accomplished by retrofitting a generic search algorithm for program repair as evidenced by the GenProg tool, or by building a customized search algorithm for program repair as in SPR. Unfortunately, automated program repair approaches may produce patches that may be rejected by programmers, because of which past works have suggested using human-written patches to produce templates to guide program repair. In this work, we take the position that we will not provide templates to guide the repair search because that may unduly restrict the repair space and attempt to overfit the repairs into one of the provided templates. Instead, we suggest the use of a set of anti-patterns --- a set of generic forbidden transformations that can be enforced on top of any search-based repair tool. We show that by enforcing our anti-patterns, we obtain repairs that localize the correct lines or functions, involve less deletion of program functionality, and are mostly obtained more efficiently. Since our set of anti-patterns are generic, we have integrated them into existing search based repair tools, including GenProg and SPR, thereby allowing us to obtain higher quality program patches with minimal effort.

Anti-patterns in search-based program repair

Regression occurs when code changes introduce failures in previously passing test cases. As software evolves, regressions may be introduced. Fixing regression errors manually is time-consuming and error-prone. We propose an approach of automated repair of software regressions, called relifix, that considers the regression repair problem as a problem of recon- ciling problematic changes. Specifically, we derive a set of code transformations obtained from our manual inspection of 73 real software regressions; this set of code transformations uses syntactical information from changed statements. Regression repair is then accomplished via a search over the code transformation operators -- which operator to apply, and where. Our evaluation compares the repairability of relifix with GenProg on 35 real regression errors. relifix repairs 23 bugs, while GenProg only fixes five bugs. We also measure the likelihood of both approaches in introducing new regressions given a reduced test suite. Our experimental results shows that our approach is less likely to introduce new regressions than GenProg.

relifix: automated repair of software regressions

Several automated program repair techniques have been proposed to reduce the time and effort spent in bug-fixing While these repair tools are designed to be generic such that they could address many software faults, different repair tools may fix certain types of faults more effectively than other tools Therefore, it is important to compare more objectively the effectiveness of different repair tools on various fault types However, existing benchmarks on automated program repairs do not allow thorough investigation of the relationship between fault types and the effectiveness of repair tools We present Codeflaws, a set of 3902 defects from 7436 programs automatically classified across 39 defect classes (we refer to different types of fault as defect classes derived from the syntactic differences between a buggy program and a patched program)

Shin Hwei Tan

Papers

@tComment: Testing Javadoc Comments to Detect Comment-Code Inconsistencies

Anti-patterns in search-based program repair

@tComment: Testing Javadoc Comments to Detect Comment-Code Inconsistencies

relifix: automated repair of software regressions

Codeflaws: a programming competition benchmark for evaluating automated program repair tools