Comparison of different impact analysis methods and programmer's opinion: an empirical study

Abstract

In change impact analysis, obtaining guidance from automatic tools would be highly desirable since this activity is generally seen as a very difficult program comprehension problem. However, since the notion of an 'impact set' (or dependency set) of a specific change is usually very inexact and context dependent, the approaches and algorithms for computing these sets are also very diverse producing quite different results. The question 'which algorithm finds program dependencies in the most efficient way?' has been preoccupying researchers for a long time, but there are still very few results published on the comparison of the different algorithms to what programmers think are real dependencies. In this work, we report on our experiment conducted with this goal in mind using a compact, easily comprehensible Java experimental software system, simulated program changes, and a group of programmers who were asked to perform impact analysis with the help of different tools and on the basis of their programming experience. We show which algorithms turned out to be the closest to the programmers' opinion in this case study. However, the results also certified that most existing algorithms need to be further enhanced and an effective methodology to use automated tools to support impact analysis still needs to be found.