开发者为什么拒绝开源项目中的重构?

Michele Lanza, G. Bavota
{"title":"开发者为什么拒绝开源项目中的重构?","authors":"Michele Lanza, G. Bavota","doi":"10.1145/3487062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Refactoring operations are behavior-preserving changes aimed at improving source code quality. While refactoring is largely considered a good practice, refactoring proposals in pull requests are often rejected after the code review. Understanding the reasons behind the rejection of refactoring contributions can shed light on how such contributions can be improved, essentially benefiting software quality. This article reports a study in which we manually coded rejection reasons inferred from 330 refactoring-related pull requests from 207 open-source Java projects. We surveyed 267 developers to assess their perceived prevalence of these identified rejection reasons, further complementing the reasons. Our study resulted in a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 26 refactoring-related rejection reasons and 21 process-related rejection reasons. The taxonomy, accompanied with representative examples and highlighted implications, provides developers with valuable insights on how to ponder and polish their refactoring contributions, and indicates a number of directions researchers can pursue toward better refactoring recommenders.","PeriodicalId":7398,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","volume":"19 1","pages":"1 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Do Developers Reject Refactorings in Open-Source Projects?\",\"authors\":\"Michele Lanza, G. Bavota\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3487062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Refactoring operations are behavior-preserving changes aimed at improving source code quality. While refactoring is largely considered a good practice, refactoring proposals in pull requests are often rejected after the code review. Understanding the reasons behind the rejection of refactoring contributions can shed light on how such contributions can be improved, essentially benefiting software quality. This article reports a study in which we manually coded rejection reasons inferred from 330 refactoring-related pull requests from 207 open-source Java projects. We surveyed 267 developers to assess their perceived prevalence of these identified rejection reasons, further complementing the reasons. Our study resulted in a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 26 refactoring-related rejection reasons and 21 process-related rejection reasons. The taxonomy, accompanied with representative examples and highlighted implications, provides developers with valuable insights on how to ponder and polish their refactoring contributions, and indicates a number of directions researchers can pursue toward better refactoring recommenders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3487062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3487062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

重构操作是旨在提高源代码质量的行为保留变更。虽然重构在很大程度上被认为是一种良好的实践,但在代码审查之后,拉取请求中的重构建议经常被拒绝。理解拒绝重构贡献背后的原因可以揭示如何改进这些贡献,从而从本质上提高软件质量。本文报告了一项研究,在这项研究中,我们从207个开源Java项目的330个与重构相关的拉取请求中推断出拒绝的原因。我们调查了267名开发者,以评估他们认为这些被拒绝原因的普遍程度,并进一步补充原因。我们的研究得出了一个全面的分类,包括26个与重构相关的拒绝原因和21个与流程相关的拒绝原因。该分类法附带了代表性示例和突出的含义,为开发人员提供了关于如何思考和完善其重构贡献的有价值的见解,并指出了研究人员可以追求的一些方向,以获得更好的重构推荐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Do Developers Reject Refactorings in Open-Source Projects?
Refactoring operations are behavior-preserving changes aimed at improving source code quality. While refactoring is largely considered a good practice, refactoring proposals in pull requests are often rejected after the code review. Understanding the reasons behind the rejection of refactoring contributions can shed light on how such contributions can be improved, essentially benefiting software quality. This article reports a study in which we manually coded rejection reasons inferred from 330 refactoring-related pull requests from 207 open-source Java projects. We surveyed 267 developers to assess their perceived prevalence of these identified rejection reasons, further complementing the reasons. Our study resulted in a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 26 refactoring-related rejection reasons and 21 process-related rejection reasons. The taxonomy, accompanied with representative examples and highlighted implications, provides developers with valuable insights on how to ponder and polish their refactoring contributions, and indicates a number of directions researchers can pursue toward better refactoring recommenders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信