Deciphering refactoring branch dynamics in modern code review: An empirical study on Qt

IF 3.8 2区计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Information and Software Technology Pub Date : 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107596

Eman Abdullah AlOmar

{"title":"Deciphering refactoring branch dynamics in modern code review: An empirical study on Qt","authors":"Eman Abdullah AlOmar","doi":"10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context:</h3><div>Modern code review is a widely employed technique in both industrial and open-source projects, serving to enhance software quality, share knowledge, and ensure compliance with coding standards and guidelines. While code review is extensively studied for its general challenges, best practices, outcomes, and socio-technical aspects, little attention has been paid to how refactoring is reviewed and what developers prioritize when reviewing refactored code in the ‘Refactor’ branch.</div></div><div><h3>Objective:</h3><div>The goal is to understand the review process for refactoring changes in the ‘Refactor’ branch and to identify what developers care about when reviewing code in this branch.</div></div><div><h3>Method:</h3><div>In this study, we present a quantitative and qualitative examination to understand the main criteria developers use to decide whether to accept or reject refactored code submissions and identify the challenges inherent in this process.</div></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><div>Analyzing 2154 refactoring and non-refactoring reviews across Qt open-source projects, we find that reviews involving refactoring from the ‘Refactor’ branch take significantly less time to resolve in terms of code review efforts. Additionally, documentation of developer intent is notably sparse within the ‘Refactor’ branch compared to other branches. Furthermore, through thematic analysis of a substantial sample of refactoring code review discussions, we construct a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 12 refactoring review criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion:</h3><div>Our findings underscore the importance of developing precise and efficient tools and techniques to aid developers in the review process amidst refactorings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54983,"journal":{"name":"Information and Software Technology","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 107596"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Software Technology","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584924002015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context:

Modern code review is a widely employed technique in both industrial and open-source projects, serving to enhance software quality, share knowledge, and ensure compliance with coding standards and guidelines. While code review is extensively studied for its general challenges, best practices, outcomes, and socio-technical aspects, little attention has been paid to how refactoring is reviewed and what developers prioritize when reviewing refactored code in the ‘Refactor’ branch.

Objective:

The goal is to understand the review process for refactoring changes in the ‘Refactor’ branch and to identify what developers care about when reviewing code in this branch.

Method:

In this study, we present a quantitative and qualitative examination to understand the main criteria developers use to decide whether to accept or reject refactored code submissions and identify the challenges inherent in this process.

Results:

Analyzing 2154 refactoring and non-refactoring reviews across Qt open-source projects, we find that reviews involving refactoring from the ‘Refactor’ branch take significantly less time to resolve in terms of code review efforts. Additionally, documentation of developer intent is notably sparse within the ‘Refactor’ branch compared to other branches. Furthermore, through thematic analysis of a substantial sample of refactoring code review discussions, we construct a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 12 refactoring review criteria.

Conclusion:

Our findings underscore the importance of developing precise and efficient tools and techniques to aid developers in the review process amidst refactorings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

解密现代代码审查中的重构分支动态：关于 Qt 的实证研究

背景：现代代码审查是工业项目和开源项目中广泛采用的一种技术，它有助于提高软件质量、共享知识并确保符合编码标准和准则。虽然对代码审查的一般挑战、最佳实践、结果和社会技术方面进行了广泛研究，但很少有人关注如何审查重构，以及开发人员在审查 "重构 "分支中的重构代码时优先考虑什么。结果：通过分析 Qt 开源项目中的 2154 个重构和非重构审查，我们发现涉及 "重构 "分支中的重构的审查所花费的代码审查时间要少得多。此外，与其他分支相比，"重构 "分支中有关开发人员意图的文档明显较少。此外，通过对大量重构代码审查讨论样本进行主题分析，我们构建了一个包含 12 项重构审查标准的综合分类法。结论：我们的研究结果强调了开发精确、高效的工具和技术以帮助开发人员在重构过程中进行审查的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Information and Software Technology 工程技术-计算机：软件工程

CiteScore

9.10

自引率

7.70%

发文量

164

审稿时长

9.6 weeks

期刊介绍： Information and Software Technology is the international archival journal focusing on research and experience that contributes to the improvement of software development practices. The journal''s scope includes methods and techniques to better engineer software and manage its development. Articles submitted for review should have a clear component of software engineering or address ways to improve the engineering and management of software development. Areas covered by the journal include: • Software management, quality and metrics, • Software processes, • Software architecture, modelling, specification, design and programming • Functional and non-functional software requirements • Software testing and verification & validation • Empirical studies of all aspects of engineering and managing software development Short Communications is a new section dedicated to short papers addressing new ideas, controversial opinions, "Negative" results and much more. Read the Guide for authors for more information. The journal encourages and welcomes submissions of systematic literature studies (reviews and maps) within the scope of the journal. Information and Software Technology is the premiere outlet for systematic literature studies in software engineering.