\usepackage[T1]{fontenc,url}
\usepackage{lmodern} % using Latin Modern to be able to use bold typewriter font
\urlstyle{sf}
-\usepackage{babel,textcomp,csquotes,ifimasterforside,varioref,graphicx}
+\usepackage{listings}
+\usepackage{tabularx}
+\usepackage{tikz}
+\usepackage{tikz-qtree}
+\usetikzlibrary{shapes,snakes,trees}
+\usepackage{babel,textcomp,csquotes,ifimasterforside,varioref}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
+\usepackage{cleveref}
\usepackage[style=numeric-comp,backend=bibtex]{biblatex}
\usepackage{amsthm}
-\usepackage{todonotes}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+% use 'disable' before printing:
+\usepackage[]{todonotes}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{he-she}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage{minted}
+\usepackage{multicol}
\usemintedstyle{bw}
\usepackage{perpage} %the perpage package
\MakePerPage{footnote} %the perpage package command
-\theoremstyle{plain}
+\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem*{wordDef}{Definition}
\graphicspath{ {./figures/} }
+\newcommand{\citing}[1]{~\cite{#1}}
+\newcommand{\myref}[1]{\cref{#1} on \cpageref{#1}}
+
\newcommand{\definition}[1]{\begin{wordDef}#1\end{wordDef}}
-\newcommand{\see}[1]{(see section \ref{#1})}
-\newcommand{\See}[1]{(See section \ref{#1}.)}
+\newcommand{\see}[1]{(see \myref{#1})}
+\newcommand{\See}[1]{(See \myref{#1}.)}
\newcommand{\explanation}[3]{\noindent\textbf{\textit{#1}}\\*\emph{When:}
#2\\*\emph{How:} #3\\*[-7px]}
-\newcommand{\type}[1]{\texttt{\textbf{#1}}}
+%\newcommand{\type}[1]{\lstinline{#1}}
+\newcommand{\code}[1]{\texttt{\textbf{#1}}}
+\newcommand{\type}[1]{\code{#1}}
\newcommand{\typeref}[1]{\footnote{\type{#1}}}
\newcommand{\typewithref}[2]{\type{#2}\typeref{#1.#2}}
\newcommand{\method}[1]{\type{#1}}
\newcommand{\refactoring}[1]{\emph{#1}}
\newcommand{\ExtractMethod}{\refactoring{Extract Method}\xspace}
\newcommand{\MoveMethod}{\refactoring{Move Method}\xspace}
-
-\newcommand{\citing}[1]{~\cite{#1}}
+\newcommand{\ExtractAndMoveMethod}{\refactoring{Extract and Move Method}\xspace}
\newcommand\todoin[2][]{\todo[inline, caption={2do}, #1]{
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth-4pt}#2\end{minipage}}}
\title{Refactoring}
-\subtitle{An unfinished essay}
+\subtitle{An essay}
\author{Erlend Kristiansen}
\bibliography{bibliography/master-thesis-erlenkr-bibliography}
\chapter*{Abstract}
-\todoin{\textbf{Remove all todos (including list) before delivery/printing!!!}}
+\todoin{\textbf{Remove all todos (including list) before delivery/printing!!!
+Can be done by removing ``draft'' from documentclass.}}
\todoin{Write abstract}
\tableofcontents{}
\chapter*{Preface}
-To make it clear already from the beginning: The discussions in this report must
-be seen in the context of object oriented programming languages, and Java in
-particular, since that is the language in which most of the examples will be
-given. All though the techniques discussed may be applicable to languages from
-other paradigms, they will not be the subject of this report.
+The discussions in this report must be seen in the context of object oriented
+programming languages, and Java in particular, since that is the language in
+which most of the examples will be given. All though the techniques discussed
+may be applicable to languages from other paradigms, they will not be the
+subject of this report.
\mainmatter
This question is best answered by first defining the concept of a
\emph{refactoring}, what it is to \emph{refactor}, and then discuss what aspects
-of programming that make people want to refactor their code.
+of programming make people want to refactor their code.
\section{Defining refactoring}
-Martin Fowler, in his masterpiece on refactoring \cite{refactoring}, defines a
+Martin Fowler, in his classic book on refactoring\citing{refactoring}, defines a
refactoring like this:
\begin{quote}
- \emph{Refactoring} (noun): a change made to the \todo{what does he mean by
- internal?} internal structure of software to make it easier to understand and
- cheaper to modify without changing its observable
- behavior.~\cite[p.~53]{refactoring}
+ \emph{Refactoring} (noun): a change made to the internal
+ structure\footnote{The structure observable by the programmer.} of software to
+ make it easier to understand and cheaper to modify without changing its
+ observable behavior.~\cite[p.~53]{refactoring}
\end{quote}
-\noindent This definition assign additional meaning to the word
+\noindent This definition assigns additional meaning to the word
\emph{refactoring}, beyond the composition of the prefix \emph{re-}, usually
meaning something like ``again'' or ``anew'', and the word \emph{factoring},
-that can mean to determine the \emph{factors} of something. Where a
-\emph{factor} would be close to the mathematical definition of something that
-divides a quantity, without leaving a remainder. Fowler is mixing the
-\emph{motivation} behind refactoring into his definition. Instead it could be
-made clean, only considering the mechanical and behavioral aspects of
-refactoring. That is to factor the program again, putting it together in a
+that can mean to isolate the \emph{factors} of something. Here a \emph{factor}
+would be close to the mathematical definition of something that divides a
+quantity, without leaving a remainder. Fowler is mixing the \emph{motivation}
+behind refactoring into his definition. Instead it could be more refined, formed
+to only consider the \emph{mechanical} and \emph{behavioral} aspects of
+refactoring. That is to factor the program again, putting it together in a
different way than before, while preserving the behavior of the program. An
alternative definition could then be:
-\definition{A refactoring is a transformation
+\definition{A \emph{refactoring} is a transformation
done to a program without altering its external behavior.}
From this we can conclude that a refactoring primarily changes how the
a refactoring.
In the extreme case one could argue that such a thing as \emph{software
-obfuscation} is to refactor. If we where to define it as a refactoring, it could
-be defined as a composite refactoring \see{compositeRefactorings}, consisting
-of, for instance, a series of rename refactorings. (But it could of course be
-much more complex, and the mechanics of it would not exactly be carved in
-stone.) To perform some serious obfuscation one would also take advantage of
-techniques not found among established refactorings, such as removing
-whitespace. This might not even generate a different syntax tree for languages
-not sensitive to whitespace, placing it in the gray area of what kind of
-transformations is to be considered refactorings.
-
-Finally, to \emph{refactor} is (quoting Martin Fowler)
-\begin{quote}
- \ldots to restructure software by applying a series of refactorings without
- changing its observable behavior.~\cite[p.~54]{refactoring}
-\end{quote}
+obfuscation} is refactoring. Software obfuscation is to make source code harder
+to read and analyze, while preserving its semantics. It could be done composing
+many, more or less randomly chosen, refactorings. Then the question arise
+whether it can be called a \emph{composite refactoring}
+\see{compositeRefactorings} or not? The answer is not obvious. First, there is
+no way to describe \emph{the} mechanics of software obfuscation, beacause there
+are infinitely many ways to do that. Second, \emph{obfuscation} can be thought
+of as \emph{one operation}: Either the code is obfuscated, or it is not. Third,
+it makes no sense to call software obfuscation \emph{a} refactoring, since it
+holds different meaning to different people. The last point is important, since
+one of the motivations behind defining different refactorings is to build up a
+vocabulary for software professionals to reason and discuss about programs,
+similar to the motivation behind design patterns\citing{designPatterns}. So for
+describing \emph{software obfuscation}, it might be more appropriate to define
+what you do when performing it rather than precisely defining its mechanics in
+terms of other refactorings.
\section{The etymology of 'refactoring'}
It is a little difficult to pinpoint the exact origin of the word
According to Martin Fowler\citing{etymology-refactoring}, there may also be more
than one origin of the word. The most well-known source, when it comes to the
origin of \emph{refactoring}, is the Smalltalk\footnote{\emph{Smalltalk},
-object-oriented, dynamically typed, reflective programming language.}\todo{find
-reference to Smalltalk website or similar?} community and their infamous
-\emph{Refactoring
+object-oriented, dynamically typed, reflective programming language. See
+\url{http://www.smalltalk.org}} community and their infamous \emph{Refactoring
Browser}\footnote{\url{http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/brant/Refactory/RefactoringBrowser.html}}
described in the article \emph{A Refactoring Tool for
Smalltalk}\citing{refactoringBrowser1997}, published in 1997.
typographical corrections, before it was transcribed into an electronic edition
typeset in \LaTeX\ and published under a Creative Commons licence in 2004. The
edition cited here is the 2004 edition, but the content should essentially be as
-in 1984.}. The exact word is only printed one place\footnote{p. 232}, but the
-term \emph{factoring} is prominent in the book, that also contains a whole
-chapter dedicated to (re)factoring, and how to keep the (Forth) code clean and
-maintainable.
+in 1984.}. The exact word is only printed one place~\cite[p.~232]{brodie1984},
+but the term \emph{factoring} is prominent in the book, that also contains a
+whole chapter dedicated to (re)factoring, and how to keep the (Forth) code clean
+and maintainable.
\begin{quote}
\ldots good factoring technique is perhaps the most important skill for a
the \emph{Forth} and \emph{Smalltalk} communities, but that it emerged
independently in each of the communities.
-\todoin{more history?}
-
\section{Motivation -- Why people refactor}
-To get a grasp of what refactoring is all about, we can try to answer this
-question: \emph{Why do people refactor?} Possible answers could include: ``To
-remove duplication'' or ``to break up long methods''. Practitioners of the art
-of Design Patterns\citing{designPatterns} could say that they do it to introduce
-a long-needed pattern into their program's design. So it is safe to say that
-peoples' intentions are to make their programs \emph{better} in some sense. But
-what aspects of the programs are becoming improved?
+There are many reasons why people want to refactor their programs. They can for
+instance do it to remove duplication, break up long methods or to introduce
+design patterns\citing{designPatterns} into their software systems. The shared
+trait for all these are that peoples intentions are to make their programs
+\emph{better}, in some sense. But what aspects of their programs are becoming
+improved?
As already mentioned, people often refactor to get rid of duplication. Moving
-identical or similar code into methods, and maybe pushing those up or down in
+identical or similar code into methods, and maybe pushing methods up or down in
their class hierarchies. Making template methods for overlapping
-algorithms/functionality and so on. It's all about gathering what belongs
-together and putting it all in one place. And the result? The code is easier to
-maintain. When removing the implicit coupling between the code snippets, the
+algorithms/functionality and so on. It is all about gathering what belongs
+together and putting it all in one place. The resulting code is then easier to
+maintain. When removing the implicit coupling\footnote{When duplicating code,
+the code might not be coupled in other ways than that it is supposed to
+represent the same functionality. So if this functionality is going to change,
+it might need to change in more than one place, thus creating an implicit
+coupling between the multiple pieces of code.} between code snippets, the
location of a bug is limited to only one place, and new functionality need only
-to be added this one place, instead of a number of places people might not even
-remember.
-
-The same people find out that their program contains a lot of long and
-hard-to-grasp methods. Then what do they do? They begin dividing their methods
-into smaller ones, using the \ExtractMethod
-refactoring\citing{refactoring}. Then they may discover something about their
-program that they weren't aware of before; revealing bugs they didn't know about
-or couldn't find due to the complex structure of their program. \todo{Proof?}
-Making the methods smaller and giving good names to the new ones clarifies the
-algorithms and enhances the \emph{understandability} of the program
-\see{magic_number_seven}. This makes simple refactoring an excellent method for
-exploring unknown program code, or code that you had forgotten that you wrote!
-
-The word \emph{simple} came up in the last section. In fact, most primitive
-refactorings are simple. The true power of them are revealed first when they are
-combined into larger --- higher level --- refactorings, called \emph{composite
-refactorings} \see{compositeRefactorings}. Often the goal of such a series of
-refactorings is a design pattern. Thus the \emph{design} can be evolved
-throughout the lifetime of a program, opposed to designing up-front. It's all
-about being structured and taking small steps to improve a program's design.
-
-Many refactorings are aimed at lowering the coupling between different classes
-and different layers of logic. \todo{which refactorings?} Say for instance that
-the coupling between the user interface and the business logic of a program is
-lowered. Then the business logic of the program could much easier be the target
-of automated tests, increasing the productivity in the software development
-process. It is also easier to distribute (e.g. between computers) the different
-components of a program if they are sufficiently decoupled.
+to be added to this one place, instead of a number of places people might not
+even remember.
+
+A problem you often encounter when programming, is that a program contains a lot
+of long and hard-to-grasp methods. It can then help to break the methods into
+smaller ones, using the \ExtractMethod refactoring\citing{refactoring}. Then you
+may discover something about a program that you were not aware of before;
+revealing bugs you did not know about or could not find due to the complex
+structure of your program. \todo{Proof?} Making the methods smaller and giving
+good names to the new ones clarifies the algorithms and enhances the
+\emph{understandability} of the program \see{magic_number_seven}. This makes
+refactoring an excellent method for exploring unknown program code, or code that
+you had forgotten that you wrote.
+
+Most primitive refactorings are simple. Their true power is first revealed when
+they are combined into larger --- higher level --- refactorings, called
+\emph{composite refactorings} \see{compositeRefactorings}. Often the goal of
+such a series of refactorings is a design pattern. Thus the \emph{design} can be
+evolved throughout the lifetime of a program, as opposed to designing up-front.
+It is all about being structured and taking small steps to improve a program's
+design.
+
+Many software design pattern are aimed at lowering the coupling between
+different classes and different layers of logic. One of the most famous is
+perhaps the \emph{Model-View-Controller}\citing{designPatterns} pattern. It is
+aimed at lowering the coupling between the user interface and the business logic
+and data representation of a program. This also has the added benefit that the
+business logic could much easier be the target of automated tests, increasing
+the productivity in the software development process. Refactoring is an
+important tool on the way to something greater.
Another effect of refactoring is that with the increased separation of concerns
-coming out of many refactorings, the \emph{performance} is improved. When
-profiling programs, the problem parts are narrowed down to smaller parts of the
-code, which are easier to tune, and optimization can be performed only where
+coming out of many refactorings, the \emph{performance} can be improved. When
+profiling programs, the problematic parts are narrowed down to smaller parts of
+the code, which are easier to tune, and optimization can be performed only where
needed and in a more effective way.
Last, but not least, and this should probably be the best reason to refactor, is
to refactor to \emph{facilitate a program change}. If one has managed to keep
one's code clean and tidy, and the code is not bloated with design patterns that
-is not ever going to be needed, then some refactoring might be needed to
+are not ever going to be needed, then some refactoring might be needed to
introduce a design pattern that is appropriate for the change that is going to
happen.
Refactoring program code --- with a goal in mind --- can give the code itself
more value. That is in the form of robustness to bugs, understandability and
-maintainability. With the first as an obvious advantage, but with the following
-two being also very important for software development. By incorporating
-refactoring in the development process, bugs are found faster, new functionality
-is added more easily and code is easier to understand by the next person exposed
-to it, which might as well be the person who wrote it. The consequence of this,
-is that refactoring can increase the average productivity of the development
-process, and thus also add to the monetary value of a business in the long run.
-Where this last point also should open the eyes of some nearsighted managers who
-seldom see beyond the next milestone.
+maintainability. Having robust code is an obvious advantage, but
+understandability and maintainability are both very important aspects of
+software development. By incorporating refactoring in the development process,
+bugs are found faster, new functionality is added more easily and code is easier
+to understand by the next person exposed to it, which might as well be the
+person who wrote it. The consequence of this, is that refactoring can increase
+the average productivity of the development process, and thus also add to the
+monetary value of a business in the long run. The perspective on productivity
+and money should also be able to open the eyes of the many nearsighted managers
+that seldom see beyond the next milestone.
\section{The magical number seven}\label{magic_number_seven}
-\emph{The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity
-for processing information}\citing{miller1956} is an article by George A. Miller
-that was published in the journal \emph{Psychological Review} in 1956. It
+The article \emph{The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on
+our capacity for processing information}\citing{miller1956} by George A.
+Miller, was published in the journal \emph{Psychological Review} in 1956. It
presents evidence that support that the capacity of the number of objects a
human being can hold in its working memory is roughly seven, plus or minus two
objects. This number varies a bit depending on the nature and complexity of the
can memorize and process a much larger amount of data than if it were to be
represented as its basic pieces. This grouping and renaming is analogous to how
many refactorings work, by grouping pieces of code and give them a new name.
-Examples are the central \ExtractMethod and \refactoring{Extract Class}
+Examples are the fundamental \ExtractMethod and \refactoring{Extract Class}
refactorings\citing{refactoring}.
\begin{quote}
information that we can deal with.~\cite[p.~95]{miller1956}
\end{quote}
-An example from the article address the problem of memorizing a sequence of
+An example from the article addresses the problem of memorizing a sequence of
binary digits. Let us say we have the following sequence\footnote{The example
presented here is slightly modified (and shortened) from what is presented in
the original article\citing{miller1956}, but it is essentially the same.} of
translation, before \heshe is presented with new information to recode. Thus
learning and understanding how to best organize certain kinds of data is
essential to efficiently handle that kind of data in the future. This is much
-like when children learn to read. First they must learn how to recognize
-letters. Then they can learn distinct words, and later read sequences of words
-that form whole sentences. Eventually, most of them will be able to read whole
-books and briefly retell the important parts of its content. This suggest that
-the use of design patterns\citing{designPatterns} is a good idea when reasoning
-about computer programs. With extensive use of design patterns when creating
-complex program structures, one does not always have to read whole classes of
-code to comprehend how they function, it may be sufficient to only see the name
-of a class to almost fully understand its responsibilities.
+like when humans learn to read. First they must learn how to recognize letters.
+Then they can learn distinct words, and later read sequences of words that form
+whole sentences. Eventually, most of them will be able to read whole books and
+briefly retell the important parts of its content. This suggest that the use of
+design patterns\citing{designPatterns} is a good idea when reasoning about
+computer programs. With extensive use of design patterns when creating complex
+program structures, one does not always have to read whole classes of code to
+comprehend how they function, it may be sufficient to only see the name of a
+class to almost fully understand its responsibilities.
\begin{quote}
Our language is tremendously useful for repackaging material into a few chunks
rich in information.~\cite[p.~95]{miller1956}
\end{quote}
-Without further evidence, these results at least indicates that refactoring
+Without further evidence, these results at least indicate that refactoring
source code into smaller units with higher cohesion and, when needed,
introducing appropriate design patterns, should aid in the cause of creating
computer programs that are easier to maintain and has code that is easier (and
\section{Notable contributions to the refactoring literature}
\todoin{Update with more contributions}
+
\begin{description}
\item[1992] William F. Opdyke submits his doctoral dissertation called
\emph{Refactoring Object-Oriented Frameworks}\citing{opdyke1992}. This
more about the craft of refactoring, as he focuses on establishing a
vocabulary for refactoring, together with the mechanics of different
refactorings and when to perform them. His methodology is also founded on
- the principles of test-driven development.
- \item[todo] \emph{Refactoring to Patterns}\todo{include}
+ the principles of test-driven development.
+ \item[2005] Joshua Kerievsky: \emph{Refactoring to
+ Patterns}\citing{kerievsky2005}. This book is heavily influenced by Fowler's
+ \emph{Refactoring}\citing{refactoring} and the ``Gang of Four'' \emph{Design
+ Patterns}\citing{designPatterns}. It is building on the refactoring
+ catalogue from Fowler's book, but is trying to bridge the gap between
+ \emph{refactoring} and \emph{design patterns} by providing a series of
+ higher-level composite refactorings, that makes code evolve toward or away
+ from certain design patterns. The book is trying to build up the readers
+ intuition around \emph{why} one would want to use a particular design
+ pattern, and not just \emph{how}. The book is encouraging evolutionary
+ design. \See{relationToDesignPatterns}
\end{description}
-\section{Tool support}\label{toolSupport}
-
-\subsection{Tool support for Java}
+\section{Tool support (for Java)}\label{toolSupport}
This section will briefly compare the refatoring support of the three IDEs
\emph{Eclipse}\footnote{\url{http://www.eclipse.org/}}, \emph{IntelliJ
IDEA}\footnote{The IDE under comparison is the \emph{Community Edition},
Regarding the \MoveMethod refactoring, the \emph{Eclipse} and \emph{IntelliJ}
IDEs do the job in very similar manners. In most situations they both do a
satisfying job by producing the expected outcome. But they do nothing to check
-that the result does not break the semantics of the program. \See{correctness}
-The \emph{NetBeans} IDE implements this refactoring in a somewhat clumsy way.
-For starters, its default destination for the move is itself, although it
-refuses to perform the refactoring if chosen. But the worst part is, that if
-moving the method \method{f} of the below code to \type{X}, it will break the
-code. Given
-
+that the result does not break the semantics of the program \see{correctness}.
+The \emph{NetBeans} IDE implements this refactoring in a somewhat
+unsophisticated way. For starters, its default destination for the move is
+itself, although it refuses to perform the refactoring if chosen. But the worst
+part is, that if moving the method \method{f} of the class \type{C} to the class
+\type{X}, it will break the code. The result is shown in
+\myref{lst:moveMethod_NetBeans}.
+
+\begin{listing}
+\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
public class C {
private X x;
}
\end{minted}
-\noindent the move refactoring will produce the following in class \type{X}:
+\columnbreak
\begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
public class X {
}
}
\end{minted}
+\end{multicols}
+\caption{Moving method \method{f} from \type{C} to \type{X}.}
+\label{lst:moveMethod_NetBeans}
+\end{listing}
NetBeans will try to make code that call the methods \method{m} and \method{n}
of \type{X} by accessing them through \var{c.x}, where \var{c} is a parameter of
-type \type{C} that is added the method \method{f} when it is moved. If
-\var{c.x} for some reason is inaccessible to \type{X}, as in this case, the
-refactoring breaks the code, and it will not compile. It has a preview of the
-refactoring outcome, but that does not catch that it is about to do something
-stupid. Ironically, this ``feature'' of NetBeans keeps it from breaking the code
-in the example from section \ref{correctness}.
+type \type{C} that is added the method \method{f} when it is moved. (This is
+seldom the desired outcome of this refactoring, but ironically, this ``feature''
+keeps NetBeans from breaking the code in the example from \myref{correctness}.)
+If \var{c.x} for some reason is inaccessible to \type{X}, as in this case, the
+refactoring breaks the code, and it will not compile. NetBeans presents a
+preview of the refactoring outcome, but the preview does not catch it if the IDE
+is about break the program.
The IDEs under investigation seems to have fairly good support for primitive
refactorings, but what about more complex ones, such as the \refactoring{Extract
Class}\citing{refactoring}? The \refactoring{Extract Class} refactoring works by
creating a class, for then to move members to that class and access them from
-the old class via a reference to the new class. \emph{IntelliJ} seems to handle
-this in a fairly good manner, although, in the case of private methods, it
-leaves unused methods behind. These are methods that delegate to a field of the
+the old class via a reference to the new class. \emph{IntelliJ} handles this in
+a fairly good manner, although, in the case of private methods, it leaves unused
+methods behind. These are methods that delegate to a field with the type of the
new class, but are not used anywhere. \emph{Eclipse} has added (or withdrawn)
-its own fun twist to the refactoring, and only allows for \emph{fields} to be
-moved to a new class. This makes it effectively only extracting a data
-structure, and calling it \refactoring{Extract Class} is a little misleading.
-One would often be better off with textual extract and paste than using the
-Extract Class refactoring in Eclipse. When it comes to \emph{NetBeans}, it does
-not even seem to have made an attempt on providing this refactoring. (Well,
-probably has, but it does not show in the IDE.)
+its own quirk to the Extract Class refactoring, and only allows for
+\emph{fields} to be moved to a new class, \emph{not methods}. This makes it
+effectively only extracting a data structure, and calling it
+\refactoring{Extract Class} is a little misleading. One would often be better
+off with textual extract and paste than using the Extract Class refactoring in
+Eclipse. When it comes to \emph{NetBeans}, it does not even seem to have made an
+attempt on providing this refactoring. (Well, it probably has, but it does not
+show in the IDE.)
\todoin{Visual Studio (C++/C\#), Smalltalk refactoring browser?,
second refactoring rubicon?}
-\section{Relation to design patterns}
-\todoin{refactoring to patterns?}
+\section{The relation to design patterns}\label{relationToDesignPatterns}
\emph{Refactoring} and \emph{design patterns} have at least one thing in common,
they are both promoted by advocates of \emph{clean code}\citing{cleanCode} as
later.~\cite[p.~353]{designPatterns}
\end{quote}
+Although sometimes associated with
+over-engineering\citing{kerievsky2005,refactoring}, design patterns are in
+general assumed to be good for maintainability of source code. That may be
+because many of them are designed to support the \emph{open/closed principle} of
+object-oriented programming. The principle was first formulated by Bertrand
+Meyer, the creator of the Eiffel programming language, like this: ``Modules
+should be both open and closed.''\citing{meyer1988} It has been popularized,
+with this as a common version:
+
+\begin{quote}
+ Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for
+ extension, but closed for modification.\footnote{See
+ \url{http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OpenClosedPrinciple} or
+ \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle}}
+\end{quote}
+
+Maintainability is often thought of as the ability to be able to introduce new
+functionality without having to change too much of the old code. When
+refactoring, the motivation is often to facilitate adding new functionality. It
+is about factoring the old code in a way that makes the new functionality being
+able to benefit from the functionality already residing in a software system,
+without having to copy old code into new. Then, next time someone shall add new
+functionality, it is less likely that the old code has to change. Assuming that
+a design pattern is the best way to get rid of duplication and assist in
+implementing new functionality, it is reasonable to conclude that a design
+pattern often is the target of a series of refactorings. Having a repertoire of
+design patterns can also help in knowing when and how to refactor a program to
+make it reflect certain desired characteristics.
+
+\begin{quote}
+ There is a natural relation between patterns and refactorings. Patterns are
+ where you want to be; refactorings are ways to get there from somewhere
+ else.~\cite[p.~107]{refactoring}
+\end{quote}
+
+This quote is wise in many contexts, but it is not always appropriate to say
+``Patterns are where you want to be\ldots''. \emph{Sometimes}, patterns are
+where you want to be, but only because it will benefit your design. It is not
+true that one should always try to incorporate as many design patterns as
+possible into a program. It is not like they have intrinsic value. They only add
+value to a system when they support its design. Otherwise, the use of design
+patterns may only lead to a program that is more complex than necessary.
+
+\begin{quote}
+ The overuse of patterns tends to result from being patterns happy. We are
+ \emph{patterns happy} when we become so enamored of patterns that we simply
+ must use them in our code.~\cite[p.~24]{kerievsky2005}
+\end{quote}
+
+This can easily happen when relying largely on up-front design. Then it is
+natural, in the very beginning, to try to build in all the flexibility that one
+believes will be necessary throughout the lifetime of a software system.
+According to Joshua Kerievsky ``That sounds reasonable --- if you happen to be
+psychic.''~\cite[p.~1]{kerievsky2005} He is advocating what he believes is a
+better approach: To let software continually evolve. To start with a simple
+design that meets today's needs, and tackle future needs by refactoring to
+satisfy them. He believes that this is a more economic approach than investing
+time and money into a design that inevitably is going to change. By relying on
+continuously refactoring a system, its design can be made simpler without
+sacrificing flexibility. To be able to fully rely on this approach, it is of
+utter importance to have a reliable suit of tests to lean on. \See{testing} This
+makes the design process more natural and less characterized by difficult
+decisions that has to be made before proceeding in the process, and that is
+going to define a project for all of its unforeseeable future.
+
\begin{comment}
\section{Classification of refactorings}
\section{The impact on software quality}
-\subsection{What is meant by quality?}
+\subsection{What is software quality?}
The term \emph{software quality} has many meanings. It all depends on the
context we put it in. If we look at it with the eyes of a software developer, it
-usually mean that the software is easily maintainable and testable, or in other
+usually means that the software is easily maintainable and testable, or in other
words, that it is \emph{well designed}. This often correlates with the
management scale, where \emph{keeping the schedule} and \emph{customer
satisfaction} is at the center. From the customers point of view, in addition to
\subsection{The impact on performance}
\begin{quote}
- Refactoring certainly will make software go more slowly, but it also makes the
- software more amenable to performance tuning.~\cite[p.~69]{refactoring}
+ Refactoring certainly will make software go more slowly\footnote{With todays
+ compiler optimization techniques and performance tuning of e.g. the Java
+virtual machine, the penalties of object creation and method calls are
+debatable.}, but it also makes the software more amenable to performance
+tuning.~\cite[p.~69]{refactoring}
\end{quote}
\noindent There is a common belief that refactoring compromises performance, due
conditionals.
In a survey, Demeyer\citing{demeyer2002} disproves this view in the case of
-polymorphism. He is doing an experiment on, what he calls, ``Transform Self Type
+polymorphism. He did an experiment on, what he calls, ``Transform Self Type
Checks'' where you introduce a new polymorphic method and a new class hierarchy
to get rid of a class' type checking of a ``type attribute``. He uses this kind
of transformation to represent other ways of replacing conditionals with
polymorphism as well. The experiment is performed on the C++ programming
-language and with three different compilers and platforms. \todo{But is the
-result better?} Demeyer concludes that, with compiler optimization turned on,
-polymorphism beats middle to large sized if-statements and does as well as
-case-statements. (In accordance with his hypothesis, due to similarities
-between the way C++ handles polymorphism and case-statements.)
+language and with three different compilers and platforms. Demeyer concludes
+that, with compiler optimization turned on, polymorphism beats middle to large
+sized if-statements and does as well as case-statements. (In accordance with
+his hypothesis, due to similarities between the way C++ handles polymorphism and
+case-statements.)
\begin{quote}
The interesting thing about performance is that if you analyze most programs,
very large code base?}
Generally, when thinking about refactoring, at the mechanical level, there are
essentially two kinds of refactorings. There are the \emph{primitive}
-refactorings, and the \emph{composite} refactorings. A primitive refactoring can
-be defined like this:
+refactorings, and the \emph{composite} refactorings.
-\definition{A primitive refactoring is a refactoring that cannot be expressed in
-terms of other refactorings.}
+\definition{A \emph{primitive refactoring} is a refactoring that cannot be
+expressed in terms of other refactorings.}
\noindent Examples are the \refactoring{Pull Up Field} and \refactoring{Pull Up
-Method} refactorings\citing{refactoring}, that moves members up in their class
+Method} refactorings\citing{refactoring}, that move members up in their class
hierarchies.
-A composite refactoring is more complex, and can be defined like this:
-
-\definition{A composite refactoring is a refactoring that can be expressed in
-terms of two or more other refactorings.}
+\definition{A \emph{composite refactoring} is a refactoring that can be
+expressed in terms of two or more other refactorings.}
\noindent An example of a composite refactoring is the \refactoring{Extract
Superclass} refactoring\citing{refactoring}. In its simplest form, it is composed
by applying \refactoring{Pull Up Field}, \refactoring{Pull Up Method} and
\refactoring{Pull Up Constructor Body} on the members that are to be members of
the new superclass. For an overview of the \refactoring{Extract Superclass}
-refactoring, see figure \ref{fig:extractSuperclass}.
+refactoring, see \myref{fig:extractSuperclass}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
the term \emph{refactoring}. Every refinement of source code that does not alter
the program's behavior is a refactoring. For small refactorings, such as
\ExtractMethod, executing it manually is a manageable task, but is still prone
-to errors. Getting it right the first time is not easy, considering the
+to errors. Getting it right the first time is not easy, considering the method
signature and all the other aspects of the refactoring that has to be in place.
Take for instance the renaming of classes, methods and fields. For complex
programs these refactorings are almost impossible to get right. Attacking them
with textual search and replace, or even regular expressions, will fall short on
these tasks. Then it is crucial to have proper tool support that can perform
-them automatically. Tools that can parse source code and thus has semantic
-knowledge about which occurrences of which names that belongs to what construct
-in the program. For even trying to perform one of these complex task manually,
-one would have to be very confident on the existing test suite \see{testing}.
+them automatically. Tools that can parse source code and thus have semantic
+knowledge about which occurrences of which names belong to what construct in the
+program. For even trying to perform one of these complex task manually, one
+would have to be very confident on the existing test suite \see{testing}.
\section{Correctness of refactorings}\label{correctness}
For automated refactorings to be truly useful, they must show a high degree of
examples of refactorings in existing tools that break programs. I will now
present an example of an \ExtractMethod refactoring followed by a \MoveMethod
refactoring that breaks a program in both the \emph{Eclipse} and \emph{IntelliJ}
-IDEs\footnote{The NetBeans IDE handles this particular situation, mainly because
- its Move Method refactoring implementation is crippled in other ways
- \see{toolSupport}.}. The following piece of code shows the target for the
- composed refactoring:
+IDEs\footnote{The NetBeans IDE handles this particular situation without
+ altering ther program's beavior, mainly because its Move Method refactoring
+ implementation is a bit rancid in other ways \see{toolSupport}.}. The
+ following piece of code shows the target for the composed refactoring:
\begin{minted}[linenos,samepage]{java}
public class C {
}
\end{minted}
-After the refactoring, the method \method{f} of class \type{C} calls the method
-\method{f} of class \type{X}, and the program breaks. (See line 5 of the
-version of class \type{C} after the refactoring.) Before the refactoring, the
-methods \method{m} and \method{n} of class \type{X} are called on different
-object instances (see line 5 and 6 of the original class \type{C}). After, they
-are called on the same object, and the statement on line 3 of class \type{X}
-(the version after the refactoring) no longer have any effect in our example.
-
-The bug introduced in the previous example is of such a nature that it is very
-difficult to spot if the refactored code is not covered by tests. It does not
-generate compilation errors, and will thus only result in a runtime error or
-corrupted data, which might be hard to detect.
-
-\section{Refactoring and testing}\label{testing}
+After the refactoring, the method \method{f} of class \type{C} is calling the
+method \method{f} of class \type{X}, and the program now behaves different than
+before. (See line 5 of the version of class \type{C} after the refactoring.)
+Before the refactoring, the methods \method{m} and \method{n} of class \type{X}
+are called on different object instances (see line 5 and 6 of the original class
+\type{C}). After, they are called on the same object, and the statement on line
+3 of class \type{X} (the version after the refactoring) no longer have any
+ effect in our example.
+
+The bug introduced in the previous example is of such a nature\footnote{Caused
+ by aliasing. See \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing_(computing)}}
+ that it is very difficult to spot if the refactored code is not covered by
+ tests. It does not generate compilation errors, and will thus only result in
+ a runtime error or corrupted data, which might be hard to detect.
+
+\section{Refactoring and the importance of testing}\label{testing}
\begin{quote}
If you want to refactor, the essential precondition is having solid
tests.\citing{refactoring}
\end{quote}
-When refactoring, there are roughly two kinds of errors that can be made. There
-are errors that make the code unable to compile, and there are the silent
-errors, only popping up at runtime. Compile-time errors are the nice ones. They
-flash up at the moment they are made (at least when using an IDE), and are
-usually easy to fix. The other kind of error is the dangerous one. It is the
-kind of error introduced in the example of section \ref{correctness}. It is an
-error sneaking into your code without you noticing, maybe. For discovering those
-kind of errors when refactoring, it is essential to have good test coverage. It
-is not a way to \emph{prove} that the code is correct, but it is a way to make
-you confindent that it \emph{probably} works as desired. In the context of test
-driven development, the tests are even a way to define how the program is
-supposed to work. It is then, by definition, working if the tests are passing.
+When refactoring, there are roughly three classes of errors that can be made.
+The first class of errors are the ones that make the code unable to compile.
+These \emph{compile-time} errors are of the nicer kind. They flash up at the
+moment they are made (at least when using an IDE), and are usually easy to fix.
+The second class are the \emph{runtime} errors. Although they take a bit longer
+to surface, they usually manifest after some time in an illegal argument
+exception, null pointer exception or similar during the program execution.
+These kind of errors are a bit harder to handle, but at least they will show,
+eventually. Then there are the \emph{behavior-changing} errors. These errors are
+of the worst kind. They do not show up during compilation and they do not turn
+on a blinking red light during runtime either. The program can seem to work
+perfectly fine with them in play, but the business logic can be damaged in ways
+that will only show up over time.
+
+For discovering runtime errors and behavior changes when refactoring, it is
+essential to have good test coverage. Testing in this context means writing
+automated tests. Manual testing may have its uses, but when refactoring, it is
+automated unit testing that dominate. For discovering behavior changes it is
+especially important to have tests that cover potential problems, since these
+kind of errors does not reveal themselves.
+
+Unit testing is not a way to \emph{prove} that a program is correct, but it is a
+way to make you confindent that it \emph{probably} works as desired. In the
+context of test driven development (commonly known as TDD), the tests are even a
+way to define how the program is \emph{supposed} to work. It is then, by
+definition, working if the tests are passing.
If the test coverage for a code base is perfect, then it should, theoretically,
-be risk-free to perform refactorings on it. This is why tests and refactoring is
-such a great match.
+be risk-free to perform refactorings on it. This is why automated tests and
+refactoring are such a great match.
+
+\subsection{Testing the code from correctness section}
+The worst thing that can happen when refactoring is to introduce changes to the
+behavior of a program, as in the example on \myref{correctness}. This example
+may be trivial, but the essence is clear. The only problem with the example is
+that it is not clear how to create automated tests for it, without changing it
+in intrusive ways.
+
+Unit tests, as they are known from the different xUnit frameworks around, are
+only suitable to test the \emph{result} of isolated operations. They can not
+easily (if at all) observe the \emph{history} of a program.
+
+
+\todoin{Write \ldots}
+
+Assuming a sequential (non-concurrent) program:
+
+\begin{minted}{java}
+tracematch (C c, X x) {
+ sym m before:
+ call(* X.m(C)) && args(c) && cflow(within(C));
+ sym n before:
+ call(* X.n()) && target(x) && cflow(within(C));
+ sym setCx after:
+ set(C.x) && target(c) && !cflow(m);
+
+ m n
+
+ { assert x == c.x; }
+}
+\end{minted}
+
+%\begin{minted}{java}
+%tracematch (X x1, X x2) {
+% sym m before:
+% call(* X.m(C)) && target(x1);
+% sym n before:
+% call(* X.n()) && target(x2);
+% sym setX after:
+% set(C.x) && !cflow(m) && !cflow(n);
+%
+% m n
+%
+% { assert x1 != x2; }
+%}
+%\end{minted}
+
+\section{The project}
+The aim of this project will be to investigate the relationship between a
+composite refactoring composed of the \ExtractMethod and \MoveMethod
+refactorings, and its impact on one or more software metrics.
+
+The composition of \ExtractMethod and \MoveMethod springs naturally out of the
+need to move procedures closer to the data they manipulate. This composed
+refactoring is not well described in the literature, but it is implemented in at
+least one tool called
+\emph{CodeRush}\footnote{\url{https://help.devexpress.com/\#CodeRush/CustomDocument3519}},
+that is an extension for \emph{MS Visual
+Studio}\footnote{\url{http://www.visualstudio.com/}}. In CodeRush it is called
+\emph{Extract Method to
+Type}\footnote{\url{https://help.devexpress.com/\#CodeRush/CustomDocument6710}},
+but I choose to call it \ExtractAndMoveMethod, since I feel it better
+communicates which primitive refactorings it is composed of.
+
+For the metrics, I will at least measure the \emph{Coupling between object
+classes} (CBO) metric that is described by Chidamber and Kemerer in their
+article \emph{A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented
+Design}\citing{metricsSuite1994}.
+
+The project will then consist in implementing the \ExtractAndMoveMethod
+refactoring, as well as executing it over a larger code base. Then the effect of
+the change must be measured by calculating the chosen software metrics both
+before and after the execution. To be able to execute the refactoring
+automatically I have to make it analyze code to determine the best selections to
+extract into new methods.
\section{Software metrics}
+\todoin{Is this the appropriate place to have this section?}
%\part{The project}
%\chapter{Planning the project}
\section{The problem statement}
\section{Choosing the target language}
Choosing which programming language to use as the target for manipulation is not
-a very difficult task. The language have to be an object-oriented programming
+a very difficult task. The language has to be an object-oriented programming
language, and it must have existing tool support for refactoring. The
\emph{Java} programming language\footnote{\url{https://www.java.com/}} is the
dominating language when it comes to examples in the literature of refactoring,
sourced community edition that is free of charge, but also offer an
\emph{Ultimate Edition} with an extended set of features, at additional cost.
All three IDEs supports adding plugins to extend their functionality and tools
-that can be used to parse and analyze Java source code. \todo{investigate if
-this is true} But one of the IDEs stand out as a favorite, and that is the
-\emph{Eclipse IDE}. This is the most popular\citing{javaReport2011} among them
-and seems to be de facto standard IDE for Java development regardless of
-platform.
+that can be used to parse and analyze Java source code. But one of the IDEs
+stand out as a favorite, and that is the \emph{Eclipse IDE}. This is the most
+popular\citing{javaReport2011} among them and seems to be de facto standard IDE
+for Java development regardless of platform.
\chapter{Refactorings in Eclipse JDT: Design, Shortcomings and Wishful
the refactoring in a single step. This is not the way it appears when a sequence
of JDT refactorings is executed. It leaves the undo history filled up with
individual undo actions corresponding to every single JDT refactoring in the
-sequence. This problem is not trivial to handle in Eclipse. (See section
-\ref{hacking_undo_history}.)
+sequence. This problem is not trivial to handle in Eclipse.
+\See{hacking_undo_history}
\section{Wishful Thinking}
-
-
+\todoin{???}
\chapter{Composite Refactorings in Eclipse}
\section{A Simple Ad Hoc Model}
-As pointed out in chapter \ref{ch:jdt_refactorings}, the Eclipse JDT refactoring
-model is not very well suited for making composite refactorings. Therefore a
-simple model using changer objects (of type \type{RefaktorChanger}) is used as
-an abstraction layer on top of the existing Eclipse refactorings.
+As pointed out in \myref{ch:jdt_refactorings}, the Eclipse JDT refactoring model
+is not very well suited for making composite refactorings. Therefore a simple
+model using changer objects (of type \type{RefaktorChanger}) is used as an
+abstraction layer on top of the existing Eclipse refactorings, instead of
+extending the \typewithref{org.eclipse.ltk.core.refactoring}{Refactoring} class.
+
+The use of an additional abstraction layer is a deliberate choice. It is due to
+the problem of creating a composite
+\typewithref{org.eclipse.ltk.core.refactoring}{Change} that can handle text
+changes that interfere with each other. Thus, a \type{RefaktorChanger} may, or
+may not, take advantage of one or more existing refactorings, but it is always
+intended to make a change to the workspace.
+
+\subsection{A typical \type{RefaktorChanger}}
+The typical refaktor changer class has two responsibilities, checking
+preconditions and executing the requested changes. This is not too different
+from the responsibilities of an LTK refactoring, with the distinction that a
+refaktor changer also executes the change, while an LTK refactoring is only
+responsible for creating the object that can later be used to do the job.
+
+Checking of preconditions is typically done by an
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.analyze.analyzers}{Analyzer}. If the
+preconditions validate, the upcoming changes are executed by an
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.change.executors}{Executor}.
\section{The Extract and Move Method Refactoring}
%The Extract and Move Method Refactoring is implemented mainly using these
unit\typeref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.ICompilationUnit}, the offset into the source
code where the extraction shall start, and the length of the source to be
extracted. Then you have to set the method name for the new method together with
-which access modifier that shall be used and some not so interesting parameters.
+its visibility and some not so interesting parameters.
\subsubsection{The MoveInstanceMethodProcessor Class}
-For the Move Method the processor requires a little more advanced input than
+For the Move Method, the processor requires a little more advanced input than
the class for the Extract Method. For construction it requires a method
-handle\typeref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.IMethod} from the Java Model for the method
-that is to be moved. Then the target for the move have to be supplied as the
-variable binding from a chosen variable declaration. In addition to this, one
-have to set some parameters regarding setters/getters and delegation.
+handle\typeref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.IMethod} for the method that is to be moved.
+Then the target for the move have to be supplied as the variable binding from a
+chosen variable declaration. In addition to this, one have to set some
+parameters regarding setters/getters, as well as delegation.
-To make a whole refactoring from the processor, one have to construct a
-\type{MoveRefactoring} from it.
+To make a working refactoring from the processor, one have to create a
+\type{MoveRefactoring} with it.
\subsection{The ExtractAndMoveMethodChanger Class}
+
The \typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.changers}{ExtractAndMoveMethodChanger}
-class, that is a subclass of the class
-\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.changers}{RefaktorChanger}, is the class
-responsible for composing the \type{ExtractMethodRefactoring} and the
-\type{MoveRefactoring}. Its constructor takes a project
-handle\typeref{org.eclipse.core.resources.IProject}, the method name for the new
-method and a \typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.utils}{SmartTextSelection}.
-
-A \type{SmartTextSelection} is basically a text
-selection\typeref{org.eclipse.jface.text.ITextSelection} object that enforces
-the providing of the underlying document during creation. I.e. its
-\methodwithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.utils.SmartTextSelection}{getDocument} method
-will never return \type{null}.
-
-Before extracting the new method, the possible targets for the move operation is
-found with the help of an
-\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors}{ExtractAndMoveMethodPrefixesExtractor}.
-The possible targets is computed from the prefixes that the extractor returns
-from its
-\methodwithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors.ExtractAndMoveMethodPrefixesExtractor}{getSafePrefixes}
-method. The changer then choose the most suitable target by finding the most
-frequent occurring prefix among the safe ones. The target is the type of the
-first part of the prefix.
-
-After finding a suitable target, the \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodChanger} first
-creates an \type{ExtractMethodRefactoring} and performs it as explained in
-section \ref{executing_refactoring} about the execution of refactorings. Then it
-creates and performs the \type{MoveRefactoring} in the same way, based on the
-changes done by the Extract Method refactoring.
-
-\subsection{The ExtractAndMoveMethodPrefixesExtractor Class}
-This extractor extracts properties needed for building the Extract and Move
-Method refactoring. It searches through the given selection to find safe
-prefixes, and those prefixes form a base that can be used to compute possible
-targets for the move part of the refactoring. It finds both the candidates, in
-the form of prefixes, and the non-candidates, called unfixes. All prefixes (and
-unfixes) are represented by a
+class is a subclass of the class
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.changers}{RefaktorChanger}. It is responsible
+for analyzing and finding the best target for, and also executing, a composition
+of the Extract Method and Move Method refactorings. This particular changer is
+the one of my changers that is closest to being a true LTK refactoring. It can
+be reworked to be one if the problems with overlapping changes are resolved. The
+changer requires a text selection and the name of the new method, or else a
+method name will be generated. The selection has to be of the type
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.utils}{CompilationUnitTextSelection}. This
+class is a custom extension to
+\typewithref{org.eclipse.jface.text}{TextSelection}, that in addition to the
+basic offset, length and similar methods, also carry an instance of the
+underlying compilation unit handle for the selection.
+
+\subsubsection{The \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodAnalyzer}}
+The analysis and precondition checking is done by the
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.analyze.analyzers}{ExtractAnd\-MoveMethodAnalyzer}.
+First is check whether the selection is a valid selection or not, with respect
+to statement boundaries and that it actually contains any selections. Then it
+checks the legality of both extracting the selection and also moving it to
+another class. If the selection is approved as legal, it is analyzed to find the
+presumably best target to move the extracted method to.
+
+For finding the best suitable target the analyzer is using a
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.analyze.collectors}{PrefixesCollector} that
+collects all the possible candidates for the refactoring. All the non-candidates
+is found by an
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.analyze.collectors}{UnfixesCollector} that
+collects all the targets that will give some kind of error if used. All prefixes
+(and unfixes) are represented by a
\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors}{Prefix}, and they are collected
-into prefix sets.\typeref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors.PrefixSet}.
-
+into sets of prefixes. The safe prefixes is found by subtracting from the set of
+candidate prefixes the prefixes that is enclosing any of the unfixes. A prefix
+is enclosing an unfix if the unfix is in the set of its sub-prefixes. As an
+example, \texttt{``a.b''} is enclosing \texttt{``a''}, as is \texttt{``a''}. The
+safe prefixes is unified in a \type{PrefixSet}. If a prefix has only one
+occurrence, and is a simple expression, it is considered unsuitable as a move
+target. This occurs in statements such as \texttt{``a.foo()''}. For such
+statements it bares no meaning to extract and move them. It only generates an
+extra method and the calling of it.
+
+\todoin{Clean up sections/subsections.}
+
+\subsubsection{The \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodExecutor}}
+If the analysis finds a possible target for the composite refactoring, it is
+executed by an
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.change.executors}{ExtractAndMoveMethodExecutor}.
+It is composed of the two executors known as
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.change.executors}{ExtractMethodRefactoringExecutor}
+and
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.change.executors}{MoveMethodRefactoringExecutor}.
+The \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodExecutor} is responsible for gluing the two
+together by feeding the \type{MoveMethod\-RefactoringExecutor} with the
+resources needed after executing the extract method refactoring.
+\See{postExtractExecution}
+
+\subsubsection{The \type{ExtractMethodRefactoringExecutor}}
+This executor is responsible for creating and executing an instance of the
+\type{ExtractMethodRefactoring} class. It is also responsible for collecting
+some post execution resources that can be used to find the method handle for the
+extracted method, as well as information about its parameters, including the
+variable they originated from.
+
+\subsubsection{The \type{MoveMethodRefactoringExecutor}}
+This executor is responsible for creating and executing an instance of the
+\type{MoveRefactoring}. The move refactoring is a processor-based refactoring,
+and for the Move Method refactoring it is the \type{MoveInstanceMethodProcessor}
+that is used.
+
+The handle for the method to be moved is found on the basis of the information
+gathered after the execution of the Extract Method refactoring. The only
+information the \type{ExtractMethodRefactoring} is sharing after its execution,
+regarding find the method handle, is the textual representation of the new
+method signature. Therefore it must be parsed, the strings for types of the
+parameters must be found and translated to a form that can be used to look up
+the method handle from its type handle. They have to be on the unresolved
+form.\todo{Elaborate?} The name for the type is found from the original
+selection, since an extracted method must end up in the same type as the
+originating method.
+
+When analyzing a selection prior to performing the Extract Method refactoring, a
+target is chosen. It has to be a variable binding, so it is either a field or a
+local variable/parameter. If the target is a field, it can be used with the
+\type{MoveInstanceMethodProcessor} as it is, since the extracted method still is
+in its scope. But if the target is local to the originating method, the target
+that is to be used for the processor must be among its parameters. Thus the
+target must be found among the extracted method's parameters. This is done by
+finding the parameter information object that corresponds to the parameter that
+was declared on basis of the original target's variable when the method was
+extracted. (The extracted method must take one such parameter for each local
+variable that is declared outside the selection that is extracted.) To match the
+original target with the correct parameter information object, the key for the
+information object is compared to the key from the original target's binding.
+The source code must then be parsed to find the method declaration for the
+extracted method. The new target must be found by searching through the
+parameters of the declaration and choose the one that has the same type as the
+old binding from the parameter information object, as well as the same name that
+is provided by the parameter information object.
+
+
+\subsection{Finding the IMethod}\label{postExtractExecution}
+\todoin{Rename section. Write.}
+
+\subsection{Property collectors}
The prefixes and unfixes are found by property
collectors\typeref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors.collectors.PropertyCollector}.
A property collector follows the visitor pattern\citing{designPatterns} and is
\subsubsection{The PrefixesCollector}
The \typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors.collectors}{PrefixesCollector}
-is of type \type{PropertyCollector}. It visits expression
+finds prefixes that makes up tha basis for calculating move targets for the
+Extract and Move Method refactoring. It visits expression
statements\typeref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.dom.ExpressionStatement} and creates
prefixes from its expressions in the case of method invocations. The prefixes
found is registered with a prefix set, together with all its sub-prefixes.
\todo{Rewrite in the case of changes to the way prefixes are found}
-\subsubsection{The UnfixesCollector}
+\subsubsection{The UnfixesCollector}\label{unfixes}
The \typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.extractors.collectors}{UnfixesCollector}
-finds unfixes within the selection. An unfix is a name that is assigned to
-within the selection. The reason that this cannot be allowed, is that the result
-would be an assignment to the \type{this} keyword, which is not valid in Java.
-
-\subsubsection{Computing Safe Prefixes}
-A safe prefix is a prefix that does not enclose an unfix. A prefix is enclosing
-an unfix if the unfix is in the set of its sub-prefixes. As an example,
-\texttt{``a.b''} is enclosing \texttt{``a''}, as is \texttt{``a''}. The safe
-prefixes is unified in a \type{PrefixSet} and can be fetched calling the
-\method{getSafePrefixes} method of the
-\type{ExtractAndMoveMethodPrefixesExtractor}.
+finds unfixes within a selection. That is prefixes that cannot be used as a
+basis for finding a move target in a refactoring.
+
+An unfix can be a name that is assigned to within a selection. The reason that
+this cannot be allowed, is that the result would be an assignment to the
+\type{this} keyword, which is not valid in Java \see{eclipse_bug_420726}.
+
+Prefixes that originates from variable declarations within the same selection
+are also considered unfixes. This is because when a method is moved, it needs to
+be called through a variable. If this variable is also within the method that is
+to be moved, this obviously cannot be done.
+
+Also considered as unfixes are variable references that are of types that is not
+suitable for moving a methods to. This can be either because it is not
+physically possible to move the method to the desired class or that it will
+cause compilation errors by doing so.
+
+If the type binding for a name is not resolved it is considered and unfix. The
+same applies to types that is only found in compiled code, so they have no
+underlying source that is accessible to us. (E.g. the \type{java.lang.String}
+class.)
+
+Interfaces types are not suitable as targets. This is simply because interfaces
+in java cannot contain methods with bodies. (This thesis does not deal with
+features of Java versions later than Java 7. Java 8 has interfaces with default
+implementations of methods.) Neither are local types allowed. This accounts for
+both local and anonymous classes. Anonymous classes are effectively the same as
+interface types with respect to unfixes. Local classes could in theory be used
+as targets, but this is not possible due to limitations of the implementation of
+the Extract and Move Method refactoring. The problem is that the refactoring is
+done in two steps, so the intermediate state between the two refactorings would
+not be legal Java code. In the case of local classes, the problem is that, in
+the intermediate step, a selection referencing a local class would need to take
+the local class as a parameter if it were to be extracted to a new method. This
+new method would need to live in the scope of the declaring class of the
+originating method. The local class would then not be in the scope of the
+extracted method, thus bringing the source code into an illegal state. One could
+imagine that the method was extracted and moved in one operation, without an
+intermediate state. Then it would make sense to include variables with types of
+local classes in the set of legal targets, since the local classes would then be
+in the scopes of the method calls. If this makes any difference for software
+metrics that measure coupling would be a different discussion.
+
+\begin{listing}
+\begin{multicols}{2}
+\begin{minted}[]{java}
+// Before
+void declaresLocalClass() {
+ class LocalClass {
+ void foo() {}
+ void bar() {}
+ }
+
+ LocalClass inst =
+ new LocalClass();
+ inst.foo();
+ inst.bar();
+}
+\end{minted}
+
+\columnbreak
+
+\begin{minted}[]{java}
+// After Extract Method
+void declaresLocalClass() {
+ class LocalClass {
+ void foo() {}
+ void bar() {}
+ }
+
+ LocalClass inst =
+ new LocalClass();
+ fooBar(inst);
+}
+
+// Intermediate step
+void fooBar(LocalClass inst) {
+ inst.foo();
+ inst.bar();
+}
+\end{minted}
+\end{multicols}
+\caption{When Extract and Move Method tries to use a variable with a local type
+as the move target, an intermediate step is taken that is not allowed. Here:
+\type{LocalClass} is not in the scope of \method{fooBar} in its intermediate
+location.}
+\label{lst:extractMethod_LocalClass}
+\end{listing}
+
+The last class of names that are considered unfixes is names used in null tests.
+These are tests that reads like this: if \texttt{<name>} equals \var{null} then
+do something. If allowing variables used in those kinds of expressions as
+targets for moving methods, we would end up with code containing boolean
+expressions like \texttt{this == null}, which would not be meaningful, since
+\var{this} would never be \var{null}.
\subsection{The Prefix Class}
-\todo{?}
+This class exists mainly for holding data about a prefix, such as the expression
+that the prefix represents and the occurrence count of the prefix within a
+selection. In addition to this, it has some functionality such as calculating
+its sub-prefixes and intersecting it with another prefix. The definition of the
+intersection between two prefixes is a prefix representing the longest common
+expression between the two.
+
\subsection{The PrefixSet Class}
+A prefix set holds elements of type \type{Prefix}. It is implemented with the
+help of a \typewithref{java.util}{HashMap} and contains some typical set
+operations, but it does not implement the \typewithref{java.util}{Set}
+interface, since the prefix set does not need all of the functionality a
+\type{Set} requires to be implemented. In addition It needs some other
+functionality not found in the \type{Set} interface. So due to the relatively
+limited use of prefix sets, and that it almost always needs to be referenced as
+such, and not a \type{Set<Prefix>}, it remains as an ad hoc solution to a
+concrete problem.
+
+There are two ways adding prefixes to a \type{PrefixSet}. The first is through
+its \method{add} method. This works like one would expect from a set. It adds
+the prefix to the set if it does not already contain the prefix. The other way
+is to \emph{register} the prefix with the set. When registering a prefix, if the
+set does not contain the prefix, it is just added. If the set contains the
+prefix, its count gets incremented. This is how the occurrence count is handled.
+
+The prefix set also computes the set of prefixes that is not enclosing any
+prefixes of another set. This is kind of a set difference operation only for
+enclosing prefixes.
\subsection{Hacking the Refactoring Undo
History}\label{hacking_undo_history}
-\todo{Where to put this section?}
+\todoin{Where to put this section?}
As an attempt to make multiple subsequent changes to the workspace appear as a
single action (i.e. make the undo changes appear as such), I tried to alter
+
+\chapter{Analyzing Source Code in Eclipse}
+
+\section{The Java model}
+The Java model of Eclipse is its internal representation of a Java project. It
+is light-weight, and has only limited possibilities for manipulating source
+code. It is typically used as a basis for the Package Explorer in Eclipse.
+
+The elements of the Java model is only handles to the underlying elements. This
+means that the underlying element of a handle does not need to actually exist.
+Hence the user of a handle must always check that it exist by calling the
+\method{exists} method of the handle.
+
+The handles with descriptions is listed in \myref{tab:javaModelTable}.
+
+\begin{table}[h]
+ \centering
+
+ \newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\hsize=#1\hsize\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}%
+ % sum must equal number of columns (3)
+ \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{| L{0.7} | L{1.1} | L{1.2} |}
+ \hline
+ \textbf{Project Element} & \textbf{Java Model element} &
+ \textbf{Description} \\
+ \hline
+ Java project & \type{IJavaProject} & The Java project which contains all other objects. \\
+ \hline
+ Source folder /\linebreak[2] binary folder /\linebreak[3] external library &
+ \type{IPackageFragmentRoot} & Hold source or binary files, can be a folder
+ or a library (zip / jar file). \\
+ \hline
+ Each package & \type{IPackageFragment} & Each package is below the
+ \type{IPackageFragmentRoot}, sub-packages are not leaves of the package,
+ they are listed directed under \type{IPackageFragmentRoot}. \\
+ \hline
+ Java Source file & \type{ICompilationUnit} & The Source file is always below
+ the package node. \\
+ \hline
+ Types /\linebreak[2] Fields /\linebreak[3] Methods & \type{IType} /
+ \linebreak[0]
+ \type{IField} /\linebreak[3] \type{IMethod} & Types, fields and methods. \\
+ \hline
+ \end{tabularx}
+ \caption{The elements of the Java Model. {\footnotesize Taken from
+ \url{http://www.vogella.com/tutorials/EclipseJDT/article.html}}}
+ \label{tab:javaModelTable}
+\end{table}
+
+The hierarchy of the Java Model is shown in \myref{fig:javaModel}.
+
+\begin{figure}[h]
+ \centering
+ \begin{tikzpicture}[%
+ grow via three points={one child at (0,-0.7) and
+ two children at (0,-0.7) and (0,-1.4)},
+ edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.south west)+(0.5,0) |-
+ (\tikzchildnode.west)}]
+ \tikzstyle{every node}=[draw=black,thick,anchor=west]
+ \tikzstyle{selected}=[draw=red,fill=red!30]
+ \tikzstyle{optional}=[dashed,fill=gray!50]
+ \node {\type{IJavaProject}}
+ child { node {\type{IPackageFragmentRoot}}
+ child { node {\type{IPackageFragment}}
+ child { node {\type{ICompilationUnit}}
+ child { node {\type{IType}}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IType \}*}}
+ child { node {\type{\ldots}}}
+ }
+ child [missing] {}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IField \}*}}}
+ child { node {\type{IMethod}}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IType \}*}}
+ child { node {\type{\ldots}}}
+ }
+ }
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IMethod \}*}}}
+ }
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IType \}*}}}
+ }
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child { node {\type{\{ ICompilationUnit \}*}}}
+ }
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IPackageFragment \}*}}}
+ }
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child [missing] {}
+ child { node {\type{\{ IPackageFragmentRoot \}*}}}
+ ;
+ \end{tikzpicture}
+ \caption{The Java model of Eclipse. ``\type{\{ SomeElement \}*}'' means
+ \type{SomeElement} zero or more times. For recursive structures,
+ ``\type{\ldots}'' is used.}
+ \label{fig:javaModel}
+\end{figure}
+
+\section{The Abstract Synax Tree}
+Eclipse is following the common paradigm of using an abstract syntaxt tree for
+source code analysis and manipulation.
+
+When parsing program source code into something that can be used as a foundation
+for analysis, the start of the process follows the same steps as in a compiler.
+This is all natural, because the way a compiler anayzes code is no different
+from how source manipulation programs would do it, except for some properties of
+code that is analyzed in the parser, and that they may be differing in what
+kinds of properties they analyze. Thus the process of translation source code
+into a structure that is suitable for analyzing, can be seen as a kind of
+interrupted compilation process.
+
+The process starts with a \emph{scanner}, or lexer. The job of the scanner is to
+read the source code and divide it into tokens for the parser. Therefore, it is
+also sometimes called a tokenizer. A token is a logical unit, defined in the
+language specification, consisting of one or more consecutive characters. In
+the java language the tokens can for instance be the \var{this} keyword, a curly
+bracket \var{\{} or a \var{nameToken}. It is recognized by the scanner on the
+basis of something eqivalent of a regular expression. This part of the process
+is often implemented with the use of a finite automata. In fact, it is common to
+specify the tokens in regular expressions, that in turn is translated into a
+finite automata lexer. This process can be automated.
+
+The program component used to translate a a stream of tokens into something
+meaningful, is called a parser. A parser is fed tokens from the scanner and
+performs an analysis of the structure of a program. It verifies that the syntax
+is correct according to the grammar rules of a language, that is usually
+specified in a context-free grammar, and often in a variant of the
+\emph{Backus--Naur
+Form}\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur\_Form}}. The
+result coming from the parser is in the form of an \emph{Abstract Syntax Tree},
+AST for short. It is called \emph{abstract}, because the structure does not
+contain all of the tokens produced by the scanner. It only contain logical
+constructs, and because it forms a tree, all kinds of parentheses and brackets
+are implicit in the structure. It is this AST that is used when performing the
+semantic analysis of the code.
+
+As an example we can think of the expression \code{(5 + 7) * 2}. The root of
+this tree would in Eclipse be an \type{InfixExpression} with the operator
+\var{TIMES}, and a left operand that is also an \type{InfixExpression} with the
+operator \var{PLUS}. The left operand \type{InfixExpression}, has in turn a left
+operand of type \type{NumberLiteral} with the value \var{``5''} and a right
+operand \type{NumberLiteral} with the value \var{``7''}. The root will have a
+right operand of type \type{NumberLiteral} and value \var{``2''}. The AST for
+this expression is illustrated in \myref{fig:astInfixExpression}.
+
+Contrary to the Java Model, an abstract syntaxt tree is a heavy-weight
+representation of source code. It contains information about propertes like type
+bindings for variables and variable bindings for names.
+
+
+\begin{figure}[h]
+ \centering
+ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
+ \tikzset{level distance=40pt}
+ \tikzset{edge from parent/.append style={thick}}
+ \tikzset{every internal node/.style={ellipse,draw,fill=lightgray}}
+ \tikzset{every leaf node/.style={draw=none,fill=none}}
+
+ \Tree [.\type{InfixExpression} [.\type{InfixExpression}
+ [.\type{NumberLiteral} \var{``5''} ] [.\type{Operator} \var{PLUS} ]
+ [.\type{NumberLiteral} \var{``7''} ] ]
+ [.\type{Operator} \var{TIMES} ]
+ [.\type{NumberLiteral} \var{``2''} ]
+ ]
+ \end{tikzpicture}
+ \caption{The abstract syntax tree for the expression \code{(5 + 7) * 2}.}
+ \label{fig:astInfixExpression}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{The AST in Eclipse}
+In Eclipse, every node in the AST is a child of the abstract superclass
+\typewithref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.dom}{ASTNode}. Every \type{ASTNode}, among a
+lot of other things, provides information about its position and length in the
+source code, as well as a reference to its parent and to the root of the tree.
+
+The root of the AST is always of type \type{CompilationUnit}. It is not the same
+as an instance of an \type{ICompilationUnit}, which is the compilation unit
+handle of the Java model. The children of a \type{CompilationUnit} is an
+optional \type{PackageDeclaration}, zero or more nodes of type
+\type{ImportDecaration} and all its top-level type declarations that has node
+types \type{AbstractTypeDeclaration}.
+
+An \type{AbstractType\-Declaration} can be one of the types
+\type{AnnotationType\-Declaration}, \type{Enum\-Declaration} or
+\type{Type\-Declaration}. The children of an \type{AbstractType\-Declaration}
+must be a subtype of a \type{BodyDeclaration}. These subtypes are:
+\type{AnnotationTypeMember\-Declaration}, \type{EnumConstant\-Declaration},
+\type{Field\-Declaration}, \type{Initializer} and \type{Method\-Declaration}.
+
+Of the body declarations, the \type{Method\-Declaration} is the most interesting
+one. Its children include lists of modifiers, type parameters, parameters and
+exceptions. It has a return type node and a body node. The body, if present, is
+of type \type{Block}. A \type{Block} is itself a \type{Statement}, and its
+children is a list of \type{Statement} nodes.
+
+There are too many types of the abstract type \type{Statement} to list up, but
+there exists a subtype of \type{Statement} for every statement type of Java, as
+one would expect. This also applies to the abstract type \type{Expression}.
+However, the expression \type{Name} is a little special, since it is both used
+as an operand in compound expressions, as well as for names in type declarations
+and such.
+
+\begin{figure}[h]
+ \centering
+ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
+ \tikzset{level distance=40pt}
+ \tikzset{edge from parent/.append style={thick}}
+ \tikzset{every tree node/.style={align=center}}
+ \tikzset{every internal node/.style={ellipse,draw,fill=lightgray}}
+ \tikzset{every leaf node/.style={draw=none,fill=none}}
+
+ \Tree [.\type{CompilationUnit} [.\type{[ PackageDeclaration ]} ]
+ [.\type{\{ ImportDeclaration \}*} ]
+ [.\type{\{ AbstractTypeDeclaration \}+} ]
+ ]
+ \end{tikzpicture}
+ \caption{The format of the abstract syntax tree in Eclipse.}
+ \label{fig:astEclipse}
+\end{figure}
+
+
+\section{Illegal selections}
+
+\subsection{Not all branches end in return}
+
+\subsection{Ambiguous return statement}
+This problem occurs when there is either more than one assignment to a local
+variable that is used outside of the selection, or there is only one, but there
+are also return statements in the selection.
+
+\todoin{Explain why we do not need to consider variables assigned inside
+local/anonymous classes. (The referenced variables need to be final and so
+on\ldots)}
+
+\chapter{Eclipse Bugs Found}
+\todoin{Add other things and change headline?}
+
+\section{Eclipse bug 420726: Code is broken when moving a method that is
+assigning to the parameter that is also the move
+destination}\label{eclipse_bug_420726}
+This bug\footnote{\url{https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show\_bug.cgi?id=420726}}
+was found when analyzing what kinds of names that was to be considered as
+\emph{unfixes} \see{unfixes}.
+
+\subsection{The bug}
+The bug emerges when trying to move a method from one class to another, and when
+the target for the move (must be a variable, local or field) is both a parameter
+variable and also is assigned to within the method body. Eclipse allows this to
+happen, although it is the sure path to a compilation error. This is because we
+would then have an assignment to a \var{this} expression, which is not allowed
+in Java.
+
+\subsection{The solution}
+The solution to this problem is to add all simple names that are assigned to in
+a method body to the set of unfixes.
+
+\section{Eclipse bug 429416: IAE when moving method from anonymous class}
+I
+discovered\footnote{\url{https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show\_bug.cgi?id=429416}}
+this bug during a batch change on the \type{org.eclipse.jdt.ui} project.
+
+\subsection{The bug}
+This bug surfaces when trying to use the Move Method refactoring to move a
+method from an anonymous class to another class. This happens both for my
+simulation as well as in Eclipse, through the user interface. It only occurs
+when Eclipse analyzes the program and finds it necessary to pass an instance of
+the originating class as a parameter to the moved method. I.e. it want to pass a
+\var{this} expression. The execution ends in an
+\typewithref{java.lang}{IllegalArgumentException} in
+\typewithref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.dom}{SimpleName} and its
+\method{setIdentifier(String)} method. The simple name is attempted created in
+the method
+\methodwithref{org.eclipse.jdt.internal.corext.refactoring.structure.\\MoveInstanceMethodProcessor}{createInlinedMethodInvocation}
+so the \type{MoveInstanceMethodProcessor} was early a clear suspect.
+
+The \method{createInlinedMethodInvocation} is the method that creates a method
+invocation where the previous invocation to the method that was moved was. From
+its code it can be read that when a \var{this} expression is going to be passed
+in to the invocation, it shall be qualified with the name of the original
+method's declaring class, if the declaring class is either an anonymous clas or
+a member class. The problem with this, is that an anonymous class does not have
+a name, hence the term \emph{anonymous} class! Therefore, when its name, an
+empty string, is passed into
+\methodwithref{org.eclipse.jdt.core.dom.AST}{newSimpleName} it all ends in an
+\type{IllegalArgumentException}.
+
+\subsection{How I solved the problem}
+Since the \type{MoveInstanceMethodProcessor} is instantiated in the
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.change.executors}{MoveMethod\-RefactoringExecutor},
+and only need to be a
+\typewithref{org.eclipse.ltk.core.refactoring.participants}{MoveProcessor}, I
+was able to copy the code for the original move processor and modify it so that
+it works better for me. It is now called
+\typewithref{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.refactorings.processors}{ModifiedMoveInstanceMethodProcessor}.
+The only modification done (in addition to some imports and suppression of
+warnings), is in the \method{createInlinedMethodInvocation}. When the declaring
+class of the method to move is anonymous, the \var{this} expression in the
+parameter list is not qualified with the declaring class' (empty) name.
+
+\section{Eclipse bug 429954: Extracting statement with reference to local type
+breaks code}\label{eclipse_bug_429954}
+The bug\footnote{\url{https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show\_bug.cgi?id=429954}}
+was discovered when doing some changes to the way unfixes is computed.
+
+\subsection{The bug}
+The problem is that Eclipse is allowing selections that references variables of
+local types to be extracted. When this happens the code is broken, since the
+extracted method must take a parameter of a local type that is not in the
+methods scope. The problem is illustrated in
+\myref{lst:extractMethod_LocalClass}, but there in another setting.
+
+\subsection{Actions taken}
+There are no actions directly springing out of this bug, since the Extract
+Method refactoring cannot be meant to be this way. This is handled on the
+analysis stage of our Extract and Move Method refactoring. So names representing
+variables of local types is considered unfixes \see{unfixes}.
+\todoin{write more when fixing this in legal statements checker}
+
\chapter{Related Work}
\section{The compositional paradigm of refactoring}
git://git.uio.no / ifi-stolz-refaktor.git / blobdiff