TY - CHAP
T1 - Prioritising refactoring using code bad smells
AU - Zhang, Min
AU - Baddoo, N.
AU - Wernick, P.
AU - Hall, T.
N1 - “This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder."
“Copyright IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.”
PY - 2011/1/1
Y1 - 2011/1/1
N2 - We investigated the relationship between six of Fowler et al.'s Code Bad Smells (Duplicated Code, Data Clumps, Switch Statements, Speculative Generality, Message Chains, and Middle Man) and software faults. In this paper we discuss how our results can be used by software developers to prioritise refactoring. In particular we suggest that source code containing Duplicated Code is likely to be associated with more faults than source code containing the other five Code Bad Smells. As a consequence, Duplicated Code should be prioritised for refactoring. Source code containing Message Chains seems to be associated with a high number of faults in some situations. Consequently it is another Code Bad Smell which should be prioritised for refactoring. Source code containing only one of the Data Clumps, Switch Statements, Speculative Generality, or Middle Man Bad Smell is not likely to be fault-prone. As a result these Code Bad Smells could be put into a lower refactoring priority.
AB - We investigated the relationship between six of Fowler et al.'s Code Bad Smells (Duplicated Code, Data Clumps, Switch Statements, Speculative Generality, Message Chains, and Middle Man) and software faults. In this paper we discuss how our results can be used by software developers to prioritise refactoring. In particular we suggest that source code containing Duplicated Code is likely to be associated with more faults than source code containing the other five Code Bad Smells. As a consequence, Duplicated Code should be prioritised for refactoring. Source code containing Message Chains seems to be associated with a high number of faults in some situations. Consequently it is another Code Bad Smell which should be prioritised for refactoring. Source code containing only one of the Data Clumps, Switch Statements, Speculative Generality, or Middle Man Bad Smell is not likely to be fault-prone. As a result these Code Bad Smells could be put into a lower refactoring priority.
KW - code bad smells
KW - fault
KW - refactoring
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051658713&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/ICSTW.2011.69
DO - 10.1109/ICSTW.2011.69
M3 - Other chapter contribution
AN - SCOPUS:80051658713
SN - 978-076954345-1
SP - 458
EP - 464
BT - Proceedings - 4th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops, ICSTW 2011
PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
T2 - ICSTW 2011, 4th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops
Y2 - 21 March 2011 through 25 March 2011
ER -