\usepackage{cleveref}
\usepackage[xindy]{glossaries}
-\usepackage[style=alphabetic,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\usepackage[style=alphabetic,backend=biber,doi=false,isbn=false]{biblatex}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{minted}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usemintedstyle{bw}
+
+\def\mintedframesep{11pt}
+
\usepackage{perpage} %the perpage package
\MakePerPage{footnote} %the perpage package command
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth-4pt}#2\end{minipage}}}
\title{Automated Composition of Refactorings}
-\subtitle{Composing the Extract and Move Method refactorings in Eclipse}
+\subtitle{Implementing and evaluating a search-based Extract and Move Method
+refactoring}
\author{Erlend Kristiansen}
\makeglossaries
\DefineBibliographyStrings{english}{%
bibliography = {References},
}
+\newbibmacro{string+doi}[1]{%
+ \iffieldundef{doi}{#1}{\href{http://dx.doi.org/\thefield{doi}}{#1}}}
+\DeclareFieldFormat{title}{\usebibmacro{string+doi}{\mkbibemph{#1}}}
+\DeclareFieldFormat[article]{title}{\usebibmacro{string+doi}{\mkbibquote{#1}}}
% UML comment in TikZ:
% ref: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/103688/folded-paper-shape-tikz
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\hsize=#1\hsize\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}%
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{>{\hsize=#1\hsize\raggedleft\arraybackslash}X}%
+
\begin{document}
-\pagenumbering{roman}
+%\pagenumbering{arabic}
+\mainmatter
\ififorside
-\frontmatter{}
+%\frontmatter{}
+%\setcounter{page}{3}
\chapter*{Abstract}
\todoin{\textbf{Remove all todos (including list) before delivery/printing!!!
\tableofcontents{}
\listoffigures{}
\listoftables{}
+\listoflistings{}
-\chapter*{Preface}
+%\mainmatter
+%\setcounter{page}{13}
-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.
+\chapter{Introduction}
-\mainmatter
+\section{Motivation and structure}
+
+For large software projects, complex program source code is an issue. It impacts
+the cost of maintenance in a negative way. It often stalls the implementation of
+new functionality and other program changes. The code may be difficult to
+understand, the changes may introduce new bugs that are hard to find and its
+complexity can simply keep people from doing code changes in fear of breaking
+some dependent piece of code. All these problems are related, and often lead to
+a vicious circle that slowly degrades the overall quality of a project.
+
+More specifically, and in an object-oriented context, a class may depend on a
+number of other classes. Sometimes these intimate relationships are appropriate,
+and sometimes they are not. Inappropriate \emph{coupling} between classes can
+make it difficult to know whether or not a change that is aimed at fixing a
+specific problem also alters the behavior of another part of a program.
+
+One of the tools that are used to fight complexity and coupling in program
+source code is \emph{refactoring}. The intention for this master's thesis is
+therefore to create an automated composite refactoring that reduces coupling
+between classes. The refactoring shall be able to operate automatically in all
+phases of a refactoring, from performing analysis to executing changes. It is
+also a requirement that it should be able to process large quantities of source
+code in a reasonable amount of time.
-\chapter{What is Refactoring?}
+
+\todoin{Structure. Write later\ldots}
+
+
+\section{What is refactoring?}
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 make people want to refactor their code.
-\section{Defining refactoring}
+\subsection{Defining refactoring}
Martin Fowler, in his classic book on refactoring\citing{refactoring}, defines a
refactoring like this:
mechanics in terms of other refactorings.
\end{comment}
-\section{The etymology of 'refactoring'}
+\subsection{The etymology of 'refactoring'}
It is a little difficult to pinpoint the exact origin of the word
``refactoring'', as it seems to have evolved as part of a colloquial
terminology, more than a scientific term. There is no authoritative source for a
the \name{Forth} and \name{Smalltalk} communities, but that it emerged
independently in each of the communities.
-\section{Motivation -- Why people refactor}
+\subsection{Reasons for refactoring}
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 into their software systems. The shared trait for all these are
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.
+structure of your program. 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, and usually involves moving code
around\citing{kerievsky2005}. The motivation behind them may first be revealed
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}
+\subsection{The magical number seven}\label{magic_number_seven}
The article \tit{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 \name{Psychological Review} in 1956. It presents
computer programs that are easier to maintain and have code that is easier (and
better) understood.
-\section{Notable contributions to the refactoring literature}
-\todoin{Thinking Forth?}
+\subsection{Notable contributions to the refactoring literature}
\begin{description}
\item[1992] William F. Opdyke submits his doctoral dissertation called
design \see{relationToDesignPatterns}.
\end{description}
-\section{Tool support (for Java)}\label{toolSupport}
+\subsection{Tool support (for Java)}\label{toolSupport}
This section will briefly compare the refactoring support of the three IDEs
\name{Eclipse}\footnote{\url{http://www.eclipse.org/}}, \name{IntelliJ
IDEA}\footnote{The IDE under comparison is the \name{Community Edition},
using the \refa{Extract Class} refactoring in \name{Eclipse}. When it comes to
\name{NetBeans}, it does not even show an attempt on providing this refactoring.
-\section{The relation to design patterns}\label{relationToDesignPatterns}
+\subsection{The relation to design patterns}\label{relationToDesignPatterns}
Refactoring and design patterns have at least one thing in common, they are both
promoted by advocates of \emph{clean code}\citing{cleanCode} as fundamental
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}
-% only interesting refactorings
-% with 2 detailed examples? One for structured and one for intra-method?
-% Is replacing Bubblesort with Quick Sort considered a refactoring?
-
-\subsection{Structural refactorings}
-
-\subsubsection{Primitive refactorings}
-
-% Composing Methods
-\explanation{Extract Method}{You have a code fragment that can be grouped
-together.}{Turn the fragment into a method whose name explains the purpose of
-the method.}
-
-\explanation{Inline Method}{A method's body is just as clear as its name.}{Put
-the method's body into the body of its callers and remove the method.}
-
-\explanation{Inline Temp}{You have a temp that is assigned to once with a simple
-expression, and the temp is getting in the way of other refactorings.}{Replace
-all references to that temp with the expression}
-
-% Moving Features Between Objects
-\explanation{Move Method}{A method is, or will be, using or used by more
-features of another class than the class on which it is defined.}{Create a new
-method with a similar body in the class it uses most. Either turn the old method
-into a simple delegation, or remove it altogether.}
-
-\explanation{Move Field}{A field is, or will be, used by another class more than
-the class on which it is defined}{Create a new field in the target class, and
-change all its users.}
-
-% Organizing Data
-\explanation{Replace Magic Number with Symbolic Constant}{You have a literal
-number with a particular meaning.}{Create a constant, name it after the meaning,
-and replace the number with it.}
-
-\explanation{Encapsulate Field}{There is a public field.}{Make it private and
-provide accessors.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Type Code with Class}{A class has a numeric type code that
-does not affect its behavior.}{Replace the number with a new class.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Type Code with Subclasses}{You have an immutable type code
-that affects the behavior of a class.}{Replace the type code with subclasses.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Type Code with State/Strategy}{You have a type code that
-affects the behavior of a class, but you cannot use subclassing.}{Replace the
-type code with a state object.}
-
-% Simplifying Conditional Expressions
-\explanation{Consolidate Duplicate Conditional Fragments}{The same fragment of
-code is in all branches of a conditional expression.}{Move it outside of the
-expression.}
-
-\explanation{Remove Control Flag}{You have a variable that is acting as a
-control flag fro a series of boolean expressions.}{Use a break or return
-instead.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Nested Conditional with Guard Clauses}{A method has
-conditional behavior that does not make clear the normal path of
-execution.}{Use guard clauses for all special cases.}
-
-\explanation{Introduce Null Object}{You have repeated checks for a null
-value.}{Replace the null value with a null object.}
-
-\explanation{Introduce Assertion}{A section of code assumes something about the
-state of the program.}{Make the assumption explicit with an assertion.}
-
-% Making Method Calls Simpler
-\explanation{Rename Method}{The name of a method does not reveal its
-purpose.}{Change the name of the method}
-
-\explanation{Add Parameter}{A method needs more information from its
-caller.}{Add a parameter for an object that can pass on this information.}
-
-\explanation{Remove Parameter}{A parameter is no longer used by the method
-body.}{Remove it.}
-
-%\explanation{Parameterize Method}{Several methods do similar things but with
-%different values contained in the method.}{Create one method that uses a
-%parameter for the different values.}
-
-\explanation{Preserve Whole Object}{You are getting several values from an
-object and passing these values as parameters in a method call.}{Send the whole
-object instead.}
-
-\explanation{Remove Setting Method}{A field should be set at creation time and
-never altered.}{Remove any setting method for that field.}
-
-\explanation{Hide Method}{A method is not used by any other class.}{Make the
-method private.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Constructor with Factory Method}{You want to do more than
-simple construction when you create an object}{Replace the constructor with a
-factory method.}
-
-% Dealing with Generalization
-\explanation{Pull Up Field}{Two subclasses have the same field.}{Move the field
-to the superclass.}
-
-\explanation{Pull Up Method}{You have methods with identical results on
-subclasses.}{Move them to the superclass.}
-
-\explanation{Push Down Method}{Behavior on a superclass is relevant only for
-some of its subclasses.}{Move it to those subclasses.}
-
-\explanation{Push Down Field}{A field is used only by some subclasses.}{Move the
-field to those subclasses}
-
-\explanation{Extract Interface}{Several clients use the same subset of a class's
-interface, or two classes have part of their interfaces in common.}{Extract the
-subset into an interface.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Inheritance with Delegation}{A subclass uses only part of a
-superclasses interface or does not want to inherit data.}{Create a field for the
-superclass, adjust methods to delegate to the superclass, and remove the
-subclassing.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Delegation with Inheritance}{You're using delegation and
-are often writing many simple delegations for the entire interface}{Make the
-delegating class a subclass of the delegate.}
-
-\subsubsection{Composite refactorings}
-
-% Composing Methods
-% \explanation{Replace Method with Method Object}{}{}
-
-% Moving Features Between Objects
-\explanation{Extract Class}{You have one class doing work that should be done by
-two}{Create a new class and move the relevant fields and methods from the old
-class into the new class.}
-
-\explanation{Inline Class}{A class isn't doing very much.}{Move all its features
-into another class and delete it.}
-
-\explanation{Hide Delegate}{A client is calling a delegate class of an
-object.}{Create Methods on the server to hide the delegate.}
-
-\explanation{Remove Middle Man}{A class is doing to much simple delegation.}{Get
-the client to call the delegate directly.}
-
-% Organizing Data
-\explanation{Replace Data Value with Object}{You have a data item that needs
-additional data or behavior.}{Turn the data item into an object.}
-
-\explanation{Change Value to Reference}{You have a class with many equal
-instances that you want to replace with a single object.}{Turn the object into a
-reference object.}
-
-\explanation{Encapsulate Collection}{A method returns a collection}{Make it
-return a read-only view and provide add/remove methods.}
-
-% \explanation{Replace Array with Object}{}{}
-
-\explanation{Replace Subclass with Fields}{You have subclasses that vary only in
-methods that return constant data.}{Change the methods to superclass fields and
-eliminate the subclasses.}
-
-% Simplifying Conditional Expressions
-\explanation{Decompose Conditional}{You have a complicated conditional
-(if-then-else) statement.}{Extract methods from the condition, then part, an
-else part.}
-
-\explanation{Consolidate Conditional Expression}{You have a sequence of
-conditional tests with the same result.}{Combine them into a single conditional
-expression and extract it.}
-
-\explanation{Replace Conditional with Polymorphism}{You have a conditional that
-chooses different behavior depending on the type of an object.}{Move each leg
-of the conditional to an overriding method in a subclass. Make the original
-method abstract.}
-
-% Making Method Calls Simpler
-\explanation{Replace Parameter with Method}{An object invokes a method, then
-passes the result as a parameter for a method. The receiver can also invoke this
-method.}{Remove the parameter and let the receiver invoke the method.}
-
-\explanation{Introduce Parameter Object}{You have a group of parameters that
-naturally go together.}{Replace them with an object.}
-
-% Dealing with Generalization
-\explanation{Extract Subclass}{A class has features that are used only in some
-instances.}{Create a subclass for that subset of features.}
-
-\explanation{Extract Superclass}{You have two classes with similar
-features.}{Create a superclass and move the common features to the
-superclass.}
-
-\explanation{Collapse Hierarchy}{A superclass and subclass are not very
-different.}{Merge them together.}
+\subsection{The impact on software quality}
-\explanation{Form Template Method}{You have two methods in subclasses that
-perform similar steps in the same order, yet the steps are different.}{Get the
-steps into methods with the same signature, so that the original methods become
-the same. Then you can pull them up.}
-
-
-\subsection{Functional refactorings}
-
-\explanation{Substitute Algorithm}{You want to replace an algorithm with one
-that is clearer.}{Replace the body of the method with the new algorithm.}
-
-\end{comment}
-
-\section{The impact on software quality}
-
-\subsection{What is software quality?}
+\subsubsection{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 means that the software is easily maintainable and testable, or in other
addition, such things as good documentation could be measured, but this is out
of the scope of this document.)
-\subsection{The impact on performance}
+\subsubsection{The impact on performance}
\begin{quote}
Refactoring certainly will make software go more slowly\footnote{With todays
compiler optimization techniques and performance tuning of e.g. the Java
design, leaving the performance tuning until after \gloss{profiling} the
software and having isolated the actual problem areas.
-\section{Composite refactorings}\label{compositeRefactorings}
-\todo{motivation, examples, manual vs automated?, what about refactoring in a
-very large code base?}
+\subsection{Composite refactorings}\label{compositeRefactorings}
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.
\label{fig:extractSuperclass}
\end{figure}
-\section{Manual vs. automated refactorings}
+\subsection{Manual vs. automated refactorings}
Refactoring is something every programmer does, even if \heshe does not known
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
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}
+\subsection{Correctness of refactorings}\label{correctness}
For automated refactorings to be truly useful, they must show a high degree of
behavior preservation. This last sentence might seem obvious, but there are
examples of refactorings in existing tools that break programs. In an ideal
\begin{listing}[h]
\begin{multicols}{2}
-\begin{minted}[linenos]{java}
-// Refactoring target
+\begin{minted}[linenos,frame=topline,label={Refactoring
+ target},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
public class C {
public X x = new X();
\columnbreak
-\begin{minted}[]{java}
-// Method destination
+\begin{minted}[frame=topline,label={Method
+ destination},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
public class X {
public void m(C c) {
c.x = new X();
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}
+\subsection{Refactoring and the importance of testing}\label{testing}
\begin{quote}
If you want to refactor, the essential precondition is having solid
tests.\citing{refactoring}
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}
+\subsubsection{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
\end{comment}
-\chapter{The Project}
+\section{The Project}
+In this section we look at the work that shall be done for this project, its
+building stones and some of the methodologies used.
-\section{Project description}
+\subsection{Project description}
The aim of this master's project will be to explore the relationship between the
\ExtractMethod and the \MoveMethod refactorings. This will be done by composing
the two into a composite refactoring. The refactoring will be called the
execute the refactoring automatically, I have to make it analyze code to
determine the best selections to extract into new methods.
-\section{The primitive refactorings}
+\subsection{The premises}
+Before we can start manipulating source code and write a tool for doing so, we
+need to decide on a programming language for the code we are going to
+manipulate. Also, since we do not want to start from scratch by implementing
+primitive refactorings ourselves, we need to choose an existing tool that
+provides the needed refactorings. In addition to be able to perform changes, we
+need a framework for analyzing source code for the language we select.
+
+\subsubsection{Choosing the target language}
+Choosing which programming language the code that shall be manipulated shall be
+written in, is not a very difficult task. We choose to limit the possible
+languages to the object-oriented programming languages, since most of the
+terminology and literature regarding refactoring comes from the world of
+object-oriented programming. In addition, the language must have existing tool
+support for refactoring.
+
+The \name{Java} programming language\footnote{\url{https://www.java.com/}} is
+the dominating language when it comes to example code in the literature of
+refactoring, and is thus a natural choice. Java is perhaps, currently the most
+influential programming language in the world, with its \name{Java Virtual
+Machine} that runs on all of the most popular architectures and also supports
+dozens of other programming languages\footnote{They compile to Java bytecode.},
+with \name{Scala}, \name{Clojure} and \name{Groovy} as the most prominent ones.
+Java is currently the language that every other programming language is compared
+against. It is also the primary programming language for the author of this
+thesis.
+
+\subsubsection{Choosing the tools}
+When choosing a tool for manipulating Java, there are certain criteria that
+have to be met. First of all, the tool should have some existing refactoring
+support that this thesis can build upon. Secondly it should provide some kind of
+framework for parsing and analyzing Java source code. Third, it should itself be
+open source. This is both because of the need to be able to browse the code for
+the existing refactorings that is contained in the tool, and also because open
+source projects hold value in them selves. Another important aspect to consider
+is that open source projects of a certain size, usually has large communities of
+people connected to them, that are committed to answering questions regarding the
+use and misuse of the products, that to a large degree is made by the community
+itself.
+
+There is a certain class of tools that meet these criteria, namely the class of
+\emph{IDEs}\footnote{\emph{Integrated Development Environment}}. These are
+programs that is meant to support the whole production cycle of a computer
+program, and the most popular IDEs that support Java, generally have quite good
+refactoring support.
+
+The main contenders for this thesis is the \name{Eclipse IDE}, with the
+\name{Java development tools} (JDT), the \name{IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition}
+and the \name{NetBeans IDE} \see{toolSupport}. \name{Eclipse} and
+\name{NetBeans} are both free, open source and community driven, while the
+\name{IntelliJ IDEA} has an open sourced community edition that is free of
+charge, but also offer an \name{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. But one of the IDEs stand out as a favorite, and that is the \name{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.
+
+\subsection{The primitive refactorings}
The refactorings presented here are the primitive refactorings used in this
project. They are the abstract building blocks used by the \ExtractAndMoveMethod
refactoring.
-\subsection{The Extract Method refactoring}
+\paragraph{The Extract Method refactoring}
The \refa{Extract Method} refactoring is used to extract a fragment of code
from its context and into a new method. A call to the new method is inlined
where the fragment was before. It is used to break code into logical units, with
\begin{listing}[h]
\begin{multicols}{2}
- \begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
- // Before
+ \begin{minted}[samepage,frame=topline,label={Before},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
class C {
void method() {
X x = new X();
\columnbreak
- \begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
- // After
+ \begin{minted}[samepage,frame=topline,label={After},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
class C {
void method() {
X x = new X();
\label{lst:extractMethodRefactoring}
\end{listing}
-\subsection{The Move Method refactoring}
+\paragraph{The Move Method refactoring}
The \refa{Move Method} refactoring is used to move a method from one class to
another. This can be appropriate if the method is using more features of another
class than of the class which it is currently defined.
\begin{listing}[h]
\begin{multicols}{2}
- \begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
- // Before
+ \begin{minted}[samepage,frame=topline,label={Before},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
class C {
void method() {
X x = new X();
\columnbreak
- \begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
- // After
+ \begin{minted}[samepage,frame=topline,label={After},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
class C {
void method() {
X x = new X();
\label{lst:moveMethodRefactoring}
\end{listing}
-\section{The Extract and Move Method refactoring}
+\subsection{The Extract and Move Method refactoring}
The \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring is a composite refactoring composed of the
primitive \ExtractMethod and \MoveMethod refactorings. The effect of this
refactoring on source code is the same as when extracting a method and moving it
-to another class. Conseptually, this is done without an intermediate step. In
+to another class. Conceptually, this is done without an intermediate step. In
practice, as we shall see later, an intermediate step may be necessary.
An example of this composite refactoring is shown in
\begin{listing}[h]
\begin{multicols}{2}
- \begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
- // Before
+ \begin{minted}[samepage,frame=topline,label={Before},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
class C {
void method() {
X x = new X();
\columnbreak
- \begin{minted}[samepage]{java}
- // After
+ \begin{minted}[samepage,frame=topline,label={After},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
class C {
void method() {
X x = new X();
\label{lst:extractAndMoveMethodRefactoring}
\end{listing}
-\section{Research questions}
+\subsection{Research questions}
The main question that I seek an answer to in this thesis is:
\begin{quote}
And, assuming the refactoring does in fact improve the quality of source code:
\paragraph{How can the automation of the refactoring be helpful?} What is the
-usefullness of the refactoring in a software development setting? In what parts
+usefulness of the refactoring in a software development setting? In what parts
of the development process can the refactoring play a role?
-\section{Choosing the target language}
-Choosing which programming language the code that shall be manipulated shall be
-written in, is not a very difficult task. We choose to limit the possible
-languages to the object-oriented programming languages, since most of the
-terminology and literature regarding refactoring comes from the world of
-object-oriented programming. In addition, the language must have existing tool
-support for refactoring.
+\subsection{Methodology}
-The \name{Java} programming language\footnote{\url{https://www.java.com/}} is
-the dominating language when it comes to example code in the literature of
-refactoring, and is thus a natural choice. Java is perhaps, currently the most
-influential programming language in the world, with its \name{Java Virtual
-Machine} that runs on all of the most popular architectures and also supports
-dozens of other programming languages\footnote{They compile to java bytecode.},
-with \name{Scala}, \name{Clojure} and \name{Groovy} as the most prominent ones.
-Java is currently the language that every other programming language is compared
-against. It is also the primary programming language for the author of this
-thesis.
+\subsubsection{Evolutionary design}
+In the programming work for this project, it have tried to use a design strategy
+called evolutionary design, also known as continuous or incremental
+design\citing{wiki_continuous_2014}. It is a software design strategy
+advocated by the Extreme Programming community. The essence of the strategy is
+that you should let the design of your program evolve naturally as your
+requirements change. This is seen in contrast with up-front design, where
+design decisions are made early in the process.
-\section{Choosing the tools}
-When choosing a tool for manipulating Java, there are certain criteria that
-have to be met. First of all, the tool should have some existing refactoring
-support that this thesis can build upon. Secondly it should provide some kind of
-framework for parsing and analyzing Java source code. Third, it should itself be
-open source. This is both because of the need to be able to browse the code for
-the existing refactorings that is contained in the tool, and also because open
-source projects hold value in them selves. Another important aspect to consider
-is that open source projects of a certain size, usually has large communities of
-people connected to them, that are committed to answering questions regarding the
-use and misuse of the products, that to a large degree is made by the community
-itself.
+The motivation behind evolutionary design is to keep the design of software as
+simple as possible. This means not introducing unneeded functionality into a
+program. You should defer introducing flexibility into your software, until it
+is needed to be able to add functionality in a clean way.
+
+Holding up design decisions, implies that the time will eventually come when
+decisions have to be made. The flexibility of the design then relies on the
+programmer's abilities to perform the necessary refactoring, and \his confidence
+in those abilities. From my experience working on this project, I can say that
+this confidence is greatly enhanced by having automated tests to rely on
+\see{tdd}.
+
+The choice of going for evolutionary design developed naturally. As Fowler
+points out in his article \tit{Is Design Dead?}, evolutionary design much
+resembles the ``code and fix'' development strategy\citing{fowler_design_2004}.
+A strategy that most of us have practiced in school. This was also the case when
+I first started this work. I had to learn the inner workings of Eclipse and its
+refactoring-related plugins. That meant a lot of fumbling around with code I did
+not know, in a trial and error fashion. Eventually I started writing tests for
+my code, and my design began to evolve.
+
+\subsubsection{Test-driven development}\label{tdd}
+As mentioned before, the project started out as a classic code and fix
+developmen process. My focus was aimed at getting something to work, rather than
+doing so according to best practice. This resulted in a project that got out of
+its starting blocks, but it was not accompanied by any tests. Hence it was soon
+difficult to make any code changes with the confidence that the program was
+still correct afterwards (assuming it was so before changing it). I always knew
+that I had to introduce some tests at one point, but this experience accelerated
+the process of leading me onto the path of testing.
+
+I then wrote tests for the core functionality of the plugin, and thus gained
+more confidence in the correctness of my code. I could now perform quite drastic
+changes without ``wetting my pants``. After this, nearly all of the semantic
+changes done to the business logic of the project, or the addition of new
+functionality, was made in a test-driven manner. This means that before
+performing any changes, I would define the desired functionality through a set
+of tests. I would then run the tests to check that they were run and that they
+did not pass. Then I would do any code changes necessary to make the tests
+pass. The definition of how the program is supposed to operate is then captured
+by the tests. However, this does not prove the correctness of the analysis
+leading to the test definitions.
+
+\subsubsection{Continuous integration}
+\todoin{???}
+
+\section{Related Work}
+
+\subsection{Safer refactorings}
+\todoin{write}
+
+\subsection{The compositional paradigm of refactoring}
+This paradigm builds upon the observation of Vakilian et
+al.\citing{vakilian2012}, that of the many automated refactorings existing in
+modern IDEs, the simplest ones are dominating the usage statistics. The report
+mainly focuses on \name{Eclipse} as the tool under investigation.
+
+The paradigm is described almost as the opposite of automated composition of
+refactorings \see{compositeRefactorings}. It works by providing the programmer
+with easily accessible primitive refactorings. These refactorings shall be
+accessed via keyboard shortcuts or quick-assist menus\footnote{Think
+quick-assist with Ctrl+1 in \name{Eclipse}} and be promptly executed, opposed to in the
+currently dominating wizard-based refactoring paradigm. They are meant to
+stimulate composing smaller refactorings into more complex changes, rather than
+doing a large upfront configuration of a wizard-based refactoring, before
+previewing and executing it. The compositional paradigm of refactoring is
+supposed to give control back to the programmer, by supporting \himher with an
+option of performing small rapid changes instead of large changes with a lesser
+degree of control. The report authors hope this will lead to fewer unsuccessful
+refactorings. It also could lower the bar for understanding the steps of a
+larger composite refactoring and thus also help in figuring out what goes wrong
+if one should choose to op in on a wizard-based refactoring.
+
+Vakilian and his associates have performed a survey of the effectiveness of the
+compositional paradigm versus the wizard-based one. They claim to have found
+evidence of that the \emph{compositional paradigm} outperforms the
+\emph{wizard-based}. It does so by reducing automation, which seem
+counterintuitive. Therefore they ask the question ``What is an appropriate level
+of automation?'', and thus questions what they feel is a rush toward more
+automation in the software engineering community.
-There is a certain class of tools that meet these criteria, namely the class of
-\emph{IDEs}\footnote{\emph{Integrated Development Environment}}. These are
-programs that is meant to support the whole production cycle of a computer
-program, and the most popular IDEs that support Java, generally have quite good
-refactoring support.
-The main contenders for this thesis is the \name{Eclipse IDE}, with the
-\name{Java development tools} (JDT), the \name{IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition}
-and the \name{NetBeans IDE} \see{toolSupport}. \name{Eclipse} and
-\name{NetBeans} are both free, open source and community driven, while the
-\name{IntelliJ IDEA} has an open sourced community edition that is free of
-charge, but also offer an \name{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. But one of the IDEs stand out as a favorite, and that is the \name{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{The search-based Extract and Move Method refactoring}
+In this chapter I will delve into the workings of the search-based
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring. We will see the choices it must make along
+the way and why it chooses a text selection as a candidate for refactoring or
+not.
-\chapter{Semantics}
-\todoin{Rename chapter?}
+After defining some concepts, I will introduce an example that will be used
+throughout the chapter to illustrate how the refactoring works in some simple
+situations.
\section{The inputs to the refactoring}
For executing an \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring, there are two simple
-requirements. The first thing the refactoring need is a text selection, telling
+requirements. The first thing the refactoring needs is a text selection, telling
it what to extract. Its second requirement is a target for the subsequent move
operation.
The extracted method must be called instead of the selection that makes up its
body. Also, the method call has to be performed via a variable, since the method
-is not static. \todo{Explain why static methods are not considered} Therefore,
-the move target must be a variable in the scope of the extracted selection. The
-actual new location for the extracted method will be the class representing the
-type of the move target variable. But, since the method also must be called
-through a variable, it makes sense to define the move target to be either a
-local variable or a field in the scope of the text selection.
+is not static. Therefore, the move target must be a variable in the scope of the
+extracted selection. The actual new location for the extracted method will be
+the class representing the type of the move target variable. But, since the
+method also must be called through a variable, it makes sense to define the move
+target to be either a local variable or a field in the scope of the text
+selection.
-\section{Finding a move target}
-In the analysis needed to perform the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring
-automatically, the selection we choose is found among all the selections that
-has a possible move target. Therefore, the best possible move target must be
-found for all the candidate selections, so that we are able to sort out the
-selection that is best suited for the refactoring.
+\section{Defining a text selection}
+A text selection, in our context, is very similar to what you think of when
+selecting a bit of text in your editor or other text processing tool with your
+mouse or keyboard. It is an abstract construct that is meant to capture which
+specific portion of text we are about to deal with.
+
+To be able to clearly reason about a text selection done to a portion of text in
+a computer file, that consist of pure text, we put up the following definition.
+
+\definition{A \emph{text selection} in a text file is defined by two
+non-negative integers, in addition to a reference to the file itself. The first
+integer is an offset into the file, while the second reference is the length of
+the text selection.}
+
+This means that the selected text consist of a number of characters equal to the
+length of the selection, where the first character is found at the specified
+offset.
+
+\section{Where we look for text selections}
+
+\subsection{Text selections are found in methods}
+The text selections we are interested in are those that surrounds program
+statements. Therefore, the place we look for selections that can form candidates
+for an execution of the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring, is within the body of
+a single method.
+
+\paragraph{On ignoring static methods}
+In this project we are not analyzing static methods for candidates to the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring. The reason for this is that in the cases
+where we want to perform the refactoring for a selection within a static method,
+the first step is to extract the selection into a new method. Hence this method
+also become static, since it must be possible to call it from a static context.
+It would then be difficult to move the method to another class, make it
+non-static and calling it through a variable. To avoid these obstacles, we
+simply ignore static methods.
+
+\begin{listing}[htb]
+\def\charwidth{5.8pt}
+\def\indent{2*\charwidth}
+\def\lineheight{\baselineskip}
+\def\mintedtop{2*\lineheight+5.8pt}
-To find the best move target for a specific text selection, we first need to
-find all the possible targets. Since the target must be a local variable or a
-field, we are basically looking for names within the selection; names that
-represents references to variables.
+\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay, yscale=-1, xshift=3.8pt+\charwidth*31]
+ \tikzstyle{overlaybox}=[fill=lightgray,opacity=0.2]
+ % Level 1
+ \draw[overlaybox] (\indent,\mintedtop+\lineheight*4) rectangle
+ +(23*\charwidth,17*\lineheight);
+
+ % Level 2
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\indent,\mintedtop+5*\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(15*\charwidth,3*\lineheight);
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\indent,\mintedtop+15*\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(15*\charwidth,3*\lineheight);
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\indent,\mintedtop+19*\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(15*\charwidth,\lineheight);
+\end{tikzpicture}
+ \begin{multicols}{2}
+ \begin{minted}[linenos,frame=topline,label=Clean,framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
+class C {
+ A a; B b; boolean bool;
+
+ void method(int val) {
+ if (bool) {
+ a.foo();
+ a = new A();
+ a.bar();
+ }
+
+ a.foo();
+ a.bar();
+
+ switch (val) {
+ case 1:
+ b.a.foo();
+ b.a.bar();
+ break;
+ default:
+ a.foo();
+ }
+ }
+}
+\end{minted}
+
+\columnbreak
+
+\begin{minted}[frame=topline,label={With statement
+ sequences},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
+class C {
+ A a; B b; boolean bool;
+
+ void method(int val) {
+ if (bool) {
+ a.foo();
+ a = new A();
+ a.bar();
+ }
+
+ a.foo();
+ a.bar();
+
+ switch (val) {
+ case 1:
+ b.a.foo();
+ b.a.bar();
+ break;
+ default:
+ a.foo();
+ }
+ }
+}
+\end{minted}
+
+ \end{multicols}
+\caption{Classes \type{A} and \type{B} are both public. The methods
+\method{foo} and \method{bar} are public members of class \type{A}.}
+\label{lst:grandExample}
+\end{listing}
+
+\subsection{The possible text selections of a method body}
+\todoin{dummy todo}
+The number of possible text selections that can be made from the text in a
+method body, are equal to all the sub-sequences of characters within it. For our
+purposes, analyzing program source code, we must define what it means for a text
+selection to be valid.
+
+\definition{A \emph{valid text selection} is a text selection that contains all
+of one or more consecutive program statements.}
+
+For a sequence of statements, the text selections that can be made from it, are
+equal to all its sub-sequences. \Myref{lst:textSelectionsExample} show an
+example of all the text selections that can be made from the code in
+\myref{lst:grandExample}, lines 16-18. For convenience and the clarity of this
+example, the text selections are represented as tuples with the start and end
+line of all selections: $\{(16), (17), (18), (16,17), (16,18), (17,18)\}$.
+
+\begin{listing}[htb]
+\def\charwidth{5.7pt}
+\def\indent{4*\charwidth}
+\def\lineheight{\baselineskip}
+\def\mintedtop{\lineheight-1pt}
+
+\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay, yscale=-1]
+ \tikzstyle{overlaybox}=[fill=lightgray,opacity=0.2]
+
+ % First statement
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop) rectangle
+ +(16*\charwidth,\lineheight);
+
+ % Second statement
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(16*\charwidth,\lineheight);
+
+ % Third statement
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop+2*\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(16*\charwidth,\lineheight);
+
+ \draw[overlaybox] (\indent-3*\charwidth,\mintedtop) rectangle
+ +(18*\charwidth,2*\lineheight);
+
+ \draw[overlaybox] (3*\charwidth,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(14*\charwidth,2*\lineheight);
+
+ % All
+ \draw[overlaybox] (\indent,\mintedtop) rectangle
+ +(12*\charwidth,3*\lineheight);
+\end{tikzpicture}
+% indent should be 5 spaces
+\begin{minted}[linenos,firstnumber=16]{java}
+ b.a.foo();
+ b.a.bar();
+ break;
+\end{minted}
+\caption{Example of how the text selections generator would generate text
+ selections based on a lists of statements. Each highlighted rectangle
+represents a text selection.}
+\label{lst:textSelectionsExample}
+\end{listing}
+
+Each nesting level of a method body can have many such sequences of statements.
+The outermost nesting level has one such sequence, and each branch contains
+their own sequence of statements. \Myref{lst:grandExample} has a version of some
+code where all such sequences of statements are highlighted for a method body.
+
+To complete our example of possible text selections, I will now list all
+possible text selections for the method in \myref{lst:grandExample}, by nesting
+level. There are 23 of them in total.
+
+\begin{description}
+ \item[Level 1 (10 selections)] \hfill \\
+ $\{(5,9), (11), (12), (14,21), (5,11), (5,12), (5,21), (11,12),
+ (11,21), \\(12,21)\}$
+
+ \item[Level 2 (13 selections)] \hfill \\
+ $\{(6), (7), (8), (6,7), (6,8), (7,8), (16), (17), (18), (16,17), (16,18), \\
+ (17,18), (20)\}$
+\end{description}
+
+\subsubsection{The complexity}\label{sec:complexity}
+The complexity of how many text selections that needs to be analyzed for a body
+of in total $n$ statements, is bounded by $O(n^2)$. A body of statements is here
+all the statements in all nesting levels of a sequence of statements. A method
+body (or a block) is a body of statements. To prove that the complexity is
+bounded by $O(n^2)$, I present a couple of theorems and proves them.
+
+\begin{theorem}
+The number of text selections that need to be analyzed for each list of
+statements of length $n$, is exactly
+
+\begin{equation*}
+ \sum_{i=1}^{n} i = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}
+ \label{eq:complexityStatementList}
+\end{equation*}
+\label{thm:numberOfTextSelection}
+\end{theorem}
+
+\begin{proof}
+ For $n=1$ this is trivial: $\frac{1(1+1)}{2} = \frac{2}{2} = 1$. One statement
+ equals one selection.
+
+ For $n=2$, you get one text selection for the first statement, one selection
+ for the second statement, and one selection for the two of them combined.
+ This equals three selections. $\frac{2(2+1)}{2} = \frac{6}{2} = 3$.
+
+ For $n=3$, you get 3 selections for the two first statements, as in the case
+ where $n=2$. In addition you get one selection for the third statement itself,
+ and two more statements for the combinations of it with the two previous
+ statements. This equals six selections. $\frac{3(3+1)}{2} = \frac{12}{2} = 6$.
+
+ Assume that for $n=k$ there exists $\frac{k(k+1)}{2}$ text selections. Then we
+ want to add selections for another statement, following the previous $k$
+ statements. So, for $n=k+1$, we get one additional selection for the statement
+ itself. Then we get one selection for each pair of the new selection and the
+ previous $k$ statements. So the total number of selections will be the number
+ of already generated selections, plus $k$ for every pair, plus one for the
+ statement itself: $\frac{k(k+1)}{2} + k +
+ 1 = \frac{k(k+1)+2k+2}{2} = \frac{k(k+1)+2(k+1)}{2} = \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2} =
+ \frac{(k+1)((k+1)+1)}{2} = \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} i$
+\end{proof}
+
+%\definition{A \emph{body of statements} is a sequence of statements where every
+%statement may have sub-statements.}
+
+\begin{theorem}
+ The number of text selections for a body of statements is maximized if all the
+ statements are at the same level.
+ \label{thm:textSelectionsMaximized}
+\end{theorem}
+
+\begin{proof}
+ Assume we have a body of, in total, $k$ statements. Then, the sum of the
+ lengths of all the lists of statements in the body, is also $k$. Let
+ $\{l,\ldots,m,(k-l-\ldots-m)\}$ be the lengths of the lists of statements in
+ the body, with $l+\ldots+m<k \Rightarrow \forall i \in \{l,\ldots,m\} : i < k$.
+
+ Then, the number of text selections that are generated for the $k$ statements
+ is
+
+ {
+ \small
+ \begin{align*}
+ \frac{l(l+1)}{2} + \ldots + \frac{m(m+1)}{2} +
+ \frac{(k-l-\ldots-m)((k-l-\ldots-m)+ 1)}{2} = \\
+ \frac{l^2+l}{2} + \ldots + \frac{m^2+m}{2} + \frac{k^2 - 2kl - \ldots - 2km +
+ l^2 + \ldots + m^2 + k - l - \ldots - m}{2} = \\
+ \frac{2l^2 - 2kl + \ldots + 2m^2 - 2km + k^2 + k}{2}
+ \end{align*}
+ }
+
+ \noindent It then remains to show that this inequality holds:
+
+ \begin{align*}
+ \frac{2l^2 - 2kl + \ldots + 2m^2 - 2km + k^2 + k}{2} < \frac{k(k+1)}{2} =
+ \frac{k^2 + k}{2}
+ \end{align*}
+
+ \noindent By multiplication by $2$ on both sides, and by removing the equal
+ parts, we get
+
+ \begin{align*}
+ 2l^2 - 2kl + \ldots + 2m^2 - 2km < 0
+ \end{align*}
+
+ Since $\forall i \in \{l,\ldots,m\} : i < k$, we have that $\forall i \in
+ \{l,\ldots,m\} : 2ki > 2i^2$, so all the pairs of parts on the form $2i^2-2ki$
+ are negative. In sum, the inequality holds.
+
+\end{proof}
+
+Therefore, the complexity for the number of selections that needs to be analyzed
+for a body of $n$ statements is $O\bigl(\frac{n(n+1)}{2}\bigr) = O(n^2)$.
+
+\section{Disqualifying a selection}
+Certain text selections would lead to broken code if used as input to the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring. To avoid this, we have to check all text
+selections for such conditions before they are further analyzed. This section
+is therefore going to present some properties that make a selection unsuitable
+for our refactoring.
+
+\subsection{A call to a protected or package-private method}
+If a text selection contains a call to a protected or package-private method, it
+would not be safe to move it to another class. The reason for this, is that we
+cannot know if the called method is being overridden by some subclass of the
+\gloss{enclosingClass}, or not.
+
+Imagine that the protected method \method{foo} is declared in class \m{A},
+and overridden in class \m{B}. The method \method{foo} is called from within a
+selection done to a method in \m{A}. We want to extract and move this selection
+to another class. The method \method{foo} is not public, so the \MoveMethod
+refactoring must make it public, making the extracted method able to call it
+from the extracted method's new location. The problem is, that the now public
+method \method{foo} is overridden in a subclass, where it has a protected
+status. This makes the compiler complain that the subclass \m{B} is trying to
+reduce the visibility of a method declared in its superclass \m{A}. This is not
+allowed in Java, and for good reasons. It would make it possible to make a
+subclass that could not be a substitute for its superclass.
+
+The problem this check helps to avoid, is a little subtle. The problem does not
+arise in the class where the change is done, but in a class derived from it.
+This shows that classes acting as superclasses are especially fragile to
+introducing errors in the context of automated refactoring.
+\begin{comment}
+This is also shown in bug\ldots \todoin{File Eclipse bug report}
+\end{comment}
+
+\subsection{A double class instance creation}
+The following is a problem caused solely by the underlying \MoveMethod
+refactoring. The problem occurs if two classes are instantiated such that the
+first constructor invocation is an argument to a second, and that the first
+constructor invocation takes an argument that is built up using a field. As an
+example, say that \var{name} is a field of the enclosing class, and we have the
+expression \code{new A(new B(name))}. If this expression is located in a
+selection that is moved to another class, \var{name} will be left untouched,
+instead of being prefixed with a variable of the same type as it is declared in.
+If \var{name} is the destination for the move, it is not replaced by
+\code{this}, or removed if it is a prefix to a member access
+(\code{name.member}), but it is still left by itself.
+
+Situations like this would lead to code that will not compile. Therefore, we
+have to avoid them by not allowing selections to contain such double class
+instance creations that also contains references to fields.
+\begin{comment}
+\todoin{File Eclipse bug report}
+\end{comment}
+
+\subsection{Instantiation of non-static inner class}
+When a non-static inner class is instantiated, this must happen in the scope of
+its declaring class. This is because it must have access to the members of the
+declaring class. If the inner class is public, it is possible to instantiate it
+through an instance of its declaring class, but this is not handled by the
+underlying \MoveMethod refactoring.
+
+Performing a move on a method that instantiates a non-static inner class, will
+break the code if the instantiation is not handled properly. For this reason,
+selections that contains instantiations of non-static inner classes are deemed
+unsuitable for the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
+
+\subsection{References to enclosing instances of the enclosing class}
+The title of this section may be a little hard to grasp at first. What it means
+is that there is a (non-static) class \m{C} that is declared in the scope of
+possibly multiple other classes. And there is a statement in the body of a
+method declared in class \m{C}, that contains a reference to one or more
+instances of these enclosing classes of \m{C}.
+
+The problem with this, is that these references may not be valid if they are
+moved to another class. Theoretically, some situations could easily be solved by
+passing, to the moved method, a reference to the instance where the problematic
+referenced member is declared. This should work in the case where this member is
+publicly accessible. This is not done in the underlying \MoveMethod refactoring,
+so it cannot be allowed in the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring either.
+
+\subsection{Inconsistent return statements}
+To verify that a text selection is consistent with respect to return statements,
+we must check that if a selection contains a return statement, then every
+possible execution path within the selection ends in either a return or a throw
+statement. This property is important regarding the \ExtractMethod refactoring.
+If it holds, it means that a method could be extracted from the selection, and a
+call to it could be substituted for the selection. If the method has a non-void
+return type, then a call to it would also be a valid return point for the
+calling method. If its return value is of the void type, then the \ExtractMethod
+refactoring will append an empty return statement to the back of the method
+call. Therefore, the analysis does not discriminate on either kinds of return
+statements, with or without a return value.
+
+A throw statement is accepted anywhere a return statement is required. This is
+because a throw statement causes an immediate exit from the current block,
+together with all outer blocks in its control flow that does not catch the
+thrown exception.
+
+Return statements can be either explicit or implicit. An \emph{explicit} return
+statement is formed by using the \code{return} keyword, while an \emph{implicit}
+return statement is a statement that is not formed using \code{return}, but must
+be the last statement of a method that can have any side effects. This can
+happen in methods with a void return type. An example is a statement that is
+inside one or more blocks. The last statement of a method could for instance be
+a synchronized statement, but the last statement that is executed in the method,
+and that can have any side effects, may be located inside the body of the
+synchronized statement.
+
+We can start the check for this property by looking at the last statement of a
+selection to see if it is a return statement (explicit or implicit) or a throw
+statement. If this is the case, then the property holds, assuming the selected
+code does not contain any compilation errors. All execution paths within the
+selection should end in either this, or another, return or throw statement.
+\todoin{State somewhere that we assume no compilation errors?}
+
+If the last statement of the selection is not a return or throw, the execution
+of it must eventually end in one for the selection to be legal. This means that
+all branches of the last statement of every branch must end in a return or
+throw. Given this recursive definition, there are only five types of statements
+that are guaranteed to end in a return or throw if their child branches does.
+All other statements would have to be considered illegal. The first three:
+Block-statements, labeled statements and do-statements are all kinds of
+fall-through statements that always gets their body executed. Do-statements
+would not make much sense if written such that they
+always ends after the first round of execution of their body, but that is not
+our concern. The remaining two statements that can end in a return or throw are
+if-statements and try-statements.
+
+For an if-statement, the rule is that if its then-part does not contain any
+return or throw statements, this is considered illegal. If the then-part does
+contain a return or throw, the else-part is checked. If its else-part is
+non-existent, or it does not contain any return or throw statements, the
+statement is considered illegal. If an if-statement is not considered illegal,
+the bodies of its two parts must be checked.
+
+Try-statements are handled much the same way as if-statements. The body of a
+try-statement must contain a return or throw. The same applies to its catch
+clauses and finally body.
+
+\subsection{Ambiguous return values}
+The problem with ambiguous return values arise when a selection is chosen to be
+extracted into a new method, but it needs to return more than one value from
+that method.
+
+This problem occurs in two situations. The first situation arise when there is
+more than one local variable that is both assigned to within a selection and
+also referenced after the selection. The other situation occur when there is
+only one such assignment, but the selection also contain return statements.
+
+Therefore we must examine the selection for assignments to local variables that
+are referenced after the text selection. Then we must verify that not more than
+one such reference is done, or zero if any return statements are found.
+
+\subsection{Illegal statements}
+An illegal statement may be a statement that is of a type that is never allowed,
+or it may be a statement of a type that is only allowed if certain conditions
+are true.
+
+Any use of the \var{super} keyword is prohibited, since its meaning is altered
+when moving a method to another class.
+
+For a \emph{break} statement, there are two situations to consider: A break
+statement with or without a label. If the break statement has a label, it is
+checked that whole of the labeled statement is inside the selection. If the
+break statement does not have a label attached to it, it is checked that its
+innermost enclosing loop or switch statement also is inside the selection.
+
+The situation for a \emph{continue} statement is the same as for a break
+statement, except that it is not allowed inside switch statements.
+
+Regarding \emph{assignments}, two types of assignments are allowed: Assignments
+to non-final variables and assignments to array access. All other assignments
+are regarded illegal.
+
+\todoin{Expand with more illegal statements and/or conclude that I did not have
+time to analyze all statement types.}
+
+\section{Disqualifying selections from the
+example}\label{sec:disqualifyingExample}
+Among the selections we found for the code in \myref{lst:grandExample}, not many
+of them must be disqualified on the basis of containing something illegal. The
+only statement causing trouble is the break statement in line 18. None of the
+selections on nesting level 2 can contain this break statement, since the
+innermost switch statement is not inside any of these selections.
+
+This means that the text selections $(18)$, $(16,18)$ and $(17,18)$ can be
+excluded from further consideration, and we are left with the following
+selections.
+
+\begin{description}
+ \item[Level 1 (10 selections)] \hfill \\
+ $\{(5,9), (11), (12), (14,21), (5,11), (5,12), (5,21), (11,12),
+ (11,21), \\(12,21)\}$
+
+ \item[Level 2 (10 selections)] \hfill \\
+ $\{(6), (7), (8), (6,7), (6,8), (7,8), (16), (17), (16,17), (20)\}$
+\end{description}
+
+\section{Finding a move target}
+In the analysis needed to perform the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring
+automatically, the selection we choose is found among all the selections that
+has a possible move target. Therefore, the best possible move target must be
+found for all the candidate selections, so that we are able to sort out the
+selection that is best suited for the refactoring.
+
+To find the best move target for a specific text selection, we first need to
+find all the possible targets. Since the target must be a local variable or a
+field, we are basically looking for names within the selection; names that
+represents references to variables.
The names we are looking for, we call prefixes. This is because we are not
interested in names that occur in the middle of a dot-separated sequence of
the prefixes that are not valid move targets \see{s:unfixes}. Also, prefixes
that are just simple names, and have only one occurrence, are left out. This is
because they are not going to have any positive effect on coupling between
-classes.
+classes, and are only going to increase the complexity of the code.
For finding the best move target among these safe prefixes, a simple heuristic
is used. It is as simple as choosing the prefix that is most frequently
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{listing}[htb]
\begin{multicols}{2}
-\begin{minted}[]{java}
-// Before
+\begin{minted}[frame=topline,label=Before,framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
void declaresLocalClass() {
class LocalClass {
void foo() {}
\columnbreak
-\begin{minted}[]{java}
-// After Extract Method
+\begin{minted}[frame=topline,label={After Extract
+ Method},framesep=\mintedframesep]{java}
void declaresLocalClass() {
class LocalClass {
void foo() {}
\end{listing}
The last class of names that are considered unfixes are 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}.
-
-\todoin{Describe what a text selection is?}
-
-\section{Choosing the selection}
-When choosing a selection between the text selections that have possible move
-targets, the selections need to be ordered. The criteria below are presented in
-the order they are prioritized. If not one selection is favored over the other
-for a concrete criterion, the selections are evaluated by the next criterion.
+tests. These are tests that reads like this: if \code{<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 \code{this == null}, which would not be meaningful, since
+\var{this} would never be \var{null}.
-\begin{enumerate}
- \item The first criterion that is evaluated is whether a selection contains
- any unfixes or not. If selection \m{A} contains no unfixes, while
- selection \m{B} does, selection \m{A} is favored over selection
- \m{B}. This is done under the assumption that, if possible, avoiding
- selections containing unfixes will make the code moved a little
- cleaner.\todoin{more arguments?}
-
- \item The second criterion that is evaluated is how many possible targets a
- selection contains. If selection \m{A} has only one possible target, and
- selection \m{B} has multiple, selection \m{A} is favored. If both
- selections have multiple possible targets, they are considered equal with
- respect to this criterion. The rationale for this heuristic is that we would
- prefer not to introduce new couplings between classes when performing the
- \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
-
- \item When evaluating the last criterion, this is with the knowledge that
- selection \m{A} and \m{B} both have one possible target. Then, if
- the move target candidate of selection \m{A} has a higher reference count
- than the target candidate of selection \m{B}, selection \m{A} is
- favored. The reason for this is that we would like to move the selection that
- gets rid of the most references to another class.
-
-\end{enumerate}
+\section{Finding the example selections that have possible targets}
+We now pick up the thread from \myref{sec:disqualifyingExample} where we have a
+set of text selections that needs to be analyzed to find out if some of them are
+suitable targets for the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
-If none of the above mentioned criteria favors one selection over another, the
-selections are considered to be equally good candidates for the
-\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
+We start by analyzing the text selections for nesting level 2, because these
+results can be used to reason about the selections for nesting level 1. First we
+have all the single-statement selections.
-\section{Disqualifying a selection}
-Certain text selections would lead to broken code if used as input to the
-\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring. To avoid this, we have to check all text
-selections for such conditions before they are further analyzed. This sections
-is therefore going to present some properties that makes a selection unsuitable
-for our refactoring.
-
-\subsection{A call to a protected or package-private method}
-If a text selection contains a call to a protected or package-private method, it
-would not be safe to move it to another class. The reason for this, is that we
-cannot know if the called method is being overridden by some subclass of the
-\gloss{enclosingClass}, or not.
-
-Imagine that the protected method \method{foo} is declared in class \m{A},
-and overridden in class \m{B}. The method \method{foo} is called from within a
-selection done to a method in \m{A}. We want to extract and move this selection
-to another class. The method \method{foo} is not public, so the \MoveMethod
-refactoring must make it public, making the extracted method able to call it
-from the extracted method's new location. The problem is that the, now public,
-method \method{foo} is overridden in a subclass, where it has a protected
-status. This makes the compiler complain that the subclass \m{B} is trying to
-reduce the visibility of a method declared in its superclass \m{A}. This is not
-allowed in Java, and for good reasons. It would make it possible to make a
-subclass that could not be a substitute for its superclass.
-\todoin{Code example?}
-
-The problem this check helps to avoid, is a little subtle. The problem does not
-arise in the class where the change is done, but in a class derived from it.
-This shows that classes acting as superclasses are especially fragile to
-introducing errors in the context of automated refactoring. This is also shown
-in bug\ldots \todoin{File Eclipse bug report}
-
-\subsection{A double class instance creation}
-The following is a problem caused solely by the underlying \MoveMethod
-refactoring. The problem occurs if two classes are instantiated such that the
-first constructor invocation is an argument to a second, and that the first
-constructor invocation takes an argument that is built up using a field. As an
-example, say that \var{name} is a field of the enclosing class, and we have the
-expression \code{new A(new B(name))}. If this expression is located in a
-selection that is moved to another class, \var{name} will be left untouched,
-instead of being prefixed with a variable of the same type as it is declared in.
-If \var{name} is the destination for the move, it is not replaced by
-\code{this}, or removed if it is a prefix to a member access
-(\code{name.member}), but it is still left by itself.
-
-Situations like this would lead to code that will not compile. Therefore, we
-have to avoid them by not allowing selections to contain such double class
-instance creations that also contains references to fields.
-\todoin{File Eclipse bug report}
+\begin{description}
+ \item[Selections $(6)$, $(8)$ and $(20)$.] \hfill \\
+ All these selections have a prefix that contains a possible target, namely
+ the variable \var{a}. The problem is that the prefixes are only one segment
+ long, and their frequency counts are only 1 as well. None of these
+ selections are therefore considered as suitable candidates for the
+ refactoring.
+
+ \item[Selection $(7)$.] \hfill \\
+ This selection contains the unfix \var{a}, and no other possible targets.
+ The reason for \var{a} being an unfix is that it is assigned to within the
+ selection. Selection $(7)$ is therefore unsuited as a refactoring candidate.
+
+ \item[Selections $(16)$ and $(17)$.] \hfill \\
+ These selections both have a possible target. The target for both selections
+ is the variable \var{b}. Both the prefixes have frequency 1. We denote this
+ with the new tuples $((16), \texttt{b.a}, f(1))$ and $((17), \texttt{b.a},
+ f(1))$. They contain the selection, the prefix with the target and the
+ frequency for this prefix.
-\subsection{Instantiation of non-static inner class}
-When a non-static inner class is instantiated, this must happen in the scope of
-its declaring class. This is because it must have access to the members of the
-declaring class. If the inner class is public, it is possible to instantiate it
-through an instance of its declaring class, but this is not handled by the
-underlying \MoveMethod refactoring.
+\end{description}
-Performing a move on a method that instantiates a non-static inner class, will
-break the code if the instantiation is not handled properly. For this reason,
-selections that contains instantiations of non-static inner classes are deemed
-unsuitable for the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
+Then we have all the text selections from level 2 that are composed of multiple
+statements:
-\subsection{References to enclosing instances of the enclosing class}
-The title of this section may be a little hard to grasp at first. What it means
-is that there is a (non-static) class \m{C} that is declared in the scope of
-possibly multiple other classes. And there is a statement in the body of a
-method declared in class \m{C}, that contains a reference to one or more
-instances of these enclosing classes of \m{C}.
+\begin{description}
+ \item[Selections $(6,7)$, $(6,8)$ and $(7,8)$.] \hfill \\
+ All these selections are disqualified for the reason that they contain the
+ unfix \var{a}, due to the assignment, and no other possible move targets.
-The problem with this, is that these references may not be valid if they are
-moved to another class. Theoretically, some situations could easily be solved by
-passing, to the moved method, a reference to the instance where the problematic
-referenced member is declared. This should work in the case where this member is
-publicly accessible. This is not done in the underlying \MoveMethod refactoring,
-so it cannot be allowed in the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring either.
+ \item[Selection $(16,17)$.] \hfill \\
+ This selection is the last selection that is not analyzed on nesting level
+ 2. It contains only one possible move target, and that is the variable
+ \var{b}. It also contains only one prefix \var{b.a}, with frequency count
+ 2. Therefore we have a new candidate $((16,17), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$.
-\subsection{Inconsistent return statements}
-To verify that a text selection is consistent with respect to return statements,
-we must check that if a selection contains a return statement, then every
-possible execution path within the selection ends in either a return or a throw
-statement. This property is important regarding the \ExtractMethod refactoring.
-If it holds, it means that a method could be extracted from the selection, and a
-call to it could be substituted for the selection. If the method has a non-void
-return type, then a call to it would also be a valid return point for the
-calling method. If its return value is of the void type, then the \ExtractMethod
-refactoring will append an empty return statement to the back of the method
-call. Therefore, the analysis does not discriminate on either kinds of return
-statements, with or without a return value.
+\end{description}
-A throw statement is accepted anywhere a return statement is required. This is
-because a throw statement causes an immediate exit from the current block,
-together with all outer blocks in its control flow that does not catch the
-thrown exception.
+Moving on to the text selections for nesting level 1, starting with the
+single-statement selections:
-Return statements can be either explicit or implicit. An \emph{explicit} return
-statement is formed by using the \code{return} keyword, while an \emph{implicit}
-return statement is a statement that is not formed using \code{return}, but must
-be the last statement of a method that can have any side effects. This can
-happen in methods with a void return type. An example is a statement that is
-inside one or more blocks. The last statement of a method could for instance be
-a synchronized statement, but the last statement that is executed in the method,
-and that can have any side effects, may be located inside the body of the
-synchronized statement.
+\begin{description}
+ \item[Selection $(5,9)$.] \hfill \\
+ This selection contains two variable references that must be analyzed to see
+ if they are possible move candidates. The first one is the variable
+ \var{bool}. This variable is of type \type{boolean}, that is a primary type
+ and therefore not possible to make any changes to. The second variable is
+ \var{a}. The variable \var{a} is an unfix in $(5,9)$, for the same reason as
+ in the selections $(6,7)$, $(7,8)$ and $(6,8)$. So selection $(5,9)$
+ contains no possible move targets.
+
+ \item[Selections $(11)$ and $(12)$.] \hfill \\
+ These selections are disqualified for the same reasons as selections $(6)$
+ and $(8)$. Their prefixes are one segment long and are referenced only one
+ time.
+
+ \item[Selection $(14,21)$] \hfill \\
+ This is the switch statement from \myref{lst:grandExample}. It contains the
+ relevant variable references \var{val}, \var{a} and \var{b}. The variable
+ \var{val} is a primary type, just as \var{bool}. The variable \var{a} is
+ only found in one statement, and in a prefix with only one segment, so it is
+ not considered to be a possible move target. The only variable left is
+ \var{b}. Just as in the selection $(16,17)$, \var{b} is part of the prefix
+ \code{b.a}, that has 2 appearances. We have found a new candidate $((14,21),
+ \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$.
+
+\end{description}
-We can start the check for this property by looking at the last statement of a
-selection to see if it is a return statement (explicit or implicit) or a throw
-statement. If this is the case, then the property holds, assuming the selected
-code does not contain any compilation errors. All execution paths within the
-selection should end in either this, or another, return or throw statement.
-\todoin{State somewhere that we assume no compilation errors?}
+It remains to see if we get any new candidates by analyzing the multi-statement
+text selections for nesting level 1:
-If the last statement of the selection is not a return or throw, the execution
-of it must eventually end in one for the selection to be legal. This means that
-all branches of the last statement of every branch must end in a return or
-throw. Given this recursive definition, there are only five types of statements
-that are guaranteed to end in a return or throw if their child branches does.
-All other statements would have to be considered illegal. The first three:
-Block-statements, labeled statements and do-statements are all kinds of
-fall-through statements that always gets their body executed. Do-statements
-would not make much sense if written such that they
-always ends after the first round of execution of their body, but that is not
-our concern. The remaining two statements that can end in a return or throw are
-if-statements and try-statements.
+\begin{description}
+ \item[Selections $(5,11)$ and $(5,12)$.] \hfill \\
+ These selections are disqualified for the same reason as $(5,9)$. The only
+ possible move target \var{a} is an unfix.
+
+ \item[Selection $(5,21)$.] \hfill \\
+ This is whole of the method body in \myref{lst:grandExample}. The variables
+ \var{a}, \var{bool} and \var{val} are either an unfix or primary types. The
+ variable \var{b} is the only possible move target, and we have, again, the
+ prefix \code{b.a} as the center of attention. The refactoring candidate is
+ $((5,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$.
+
+ \item[Selection $(11,12)$.] \hfill \\
+ This small selection contains the prefix \code{a} with frequency 2, and no
+ unfixes. The candidate is $((11,12), \texttt{a}, f(2))$.
+
+ \item[Selection $(11,21)$] \hfill \\
+ This selection contains the selection $(11,12)$ in addition to the switch
+ statement. The selection has two possible move targets. The first one is
+ \var{b}, in a prefix with frequency 2. The second is \var{a}, although it
+ is in a simple prefix, it is referenced 3 times, and is therefore chosen
+ as the target for the selection. The new candidate is $((11,21),
+ \texttt{a}, f(3))$.
+
+ \item[Selection $(12,21)$.] \hfill \\
+ This selection is similar to the previous $(11,21)$, only that \var{a} now
+ has frequency count 2. This means that the prefixes \code{a} and
+ \code{b.a} both have the count 2. Of the two, \code{b.a} is preferred,
+ since it has more segments than \code{a}. Thus the candidate for this
+ selection is $((12,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$.
-For an if-statement, the rule is that if its then-part does not contain any
-return or throw statements, this is considered illegal. If the then-part does
-contain a return or throw, the else-part is checked. If its else-part is
-non-existent, or it does not contain any return or throw statements, the
-statement is considered illegal. If an if-statement is not considered illegal,
-the bodies of its two parts must be checked.
+\end{description}
-Try-statements are handled much the same way as if-statements. The body of a
-try-statement must contain a return or throw. The same applies to its catch
-clauses and finally body.
+For the method in \myref{lst:grandExample} we therefore have the following 8
+candidates for the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring: $\{((16), \texttt{b.a},
+f(1)), ((17), \texttt{b.a}, f(1)), ((16,17), \texttt{b.a}, f(2)), ((14,21),
+\texttt{b.a}, f(2)), \\ ((5,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2)), ((11,12), \texttt{a},
+f(2)), ((11,21), \texttt{a}, f(3)), ((12,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))\}$.
-\subsection{Ambiguous return values}
-The problem with ambiguous return values arise when a selection is chosen to be
-extracted into a new method, but it needs to return more than one value from
-that method.
+It now only remains to specify an order for these candidates, so we can choose
+the most suitable one to refactor.
-This problem occurs in two situations. The first situation arise when there is
-more than one local variable that is both assigned to within a selection and
-also referenced after the selection. The other situation occur when there is
-only one such assignment, but the selection also contain return statements.
-Therefore we must examine the selection for assignments to local variables that
-are referenced after the text selection. Then we must verify that not more than
-one such reference is done, or zero if any return statements are found.
+\section{Choosing the selection}\label{sec:choosingSelection}
+When choosing a selection between the text selections that have possible move
+targets, the selections need to be ordered. The criteria below are presented in
+the order they are prioritized. If not one selection is favored over the other
+for a concrete criterion, the selections are evaluated by the next criterion.
-\subsection{Illegal statements}
-An illegal statement may be a statement that is of a type that is never allowed,
-or it may be a statement of a type that is only allowed if certain conditions
-are true.
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item The first criterion that is evaluated is whether a selection contains
+ any unfixes or not. If selection \m{A} contains no unfixes, while selection
+ \m{B} does, selection \m{A} is favored over selection \m{B}. This is
+ because, if we can, we want to avoid moving such as assignments and variable
+ declarations. This is done under the assumption that, if possible, avoiding
+ selections containing unfixes will make the code moved a little cleaner.
+
+ \item The second criterion that is evaluated is whether a selection contains
+ multiple possible targets or not. If selection \m{A} has only one possible
+ target, and selection \m{B} has multiple, selection \m{A} is favored. If
+ both selections have multiple possible targets, they are considered equal
+ with respect to this criterion. The rationale for this heuristic is that we
+ would prefer not to introduce new couplings between classes when performing
+ the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
+
+ \item When evaluating this criterion, this is with the knowledge that
+ selection \m{A} and \m{B} both have one possible target, or multiple
+ possible targets. Then, if the move target candidate of selection \m{A} has
+ a higher reference count than the target candidate of selection \m{B},
+ selection \m{A} is favored. The reason for this is that we would like to
+ move the selection that gets rid of the most references to another class.
+
+ \item The last criterion is that if the frequencies of the targets chosen for
+ both selections are equal, the selection with the target that is part of the
+ prefix with highest number of segments is favored. This is done to favor
+ indirection.
-Any use of the \var{super} keyword is prohibited, since its meaning is altered
-when moving a method to another class.
+\end{enumerate}
-For a \emph{break} statement, there are two situations to consider: A break
-statement with or without a label. If the break statement has a label, it is
-checked that whole of the labeled statement is inside the selection. If the
-break statement does not have a label attached to it, it is checked that its
-innermost enclosing loop or switch statement also is inside the selection.
+If none of the above mentioned criteria favors one selection over another, the
+selections are considered to be equally good candidates for the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
-The situation for a \emph{continue} statement is the same as for a break
-statement, except that it is not allowed inside switch statements.
+\section{Concluding the example}
+For choosing one of the remaining selections, we need to order our candidates
+after the criteria in the previous section. Below we have the candidates ordered
+in descending order, with the ``best'' candidate first:
-Regarding \emph{assignments}, two types of assignments are allowed: Assignments
-to non-final variables and assignments to array access. All other assignments
-are regarded illegal.
+\begin{multicols}{2}
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item $((16,17), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$
+ \item $((11,12), \texttt{a}, f(2))$
+ \item $((16), \texttt{b.a}, f(1))$
+ \item $((17), \texttt{b.a}, f(1))$
+
+ % With unfixes:
+ % Many possible targets
+ \item $((11,21), \texttt{a}, f(3))$
+ \item $((5,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$
+ \item $((12,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$
+ \item $((14,21), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$
-\todoin{Expand with more illegal statements and/or conclude that I did not have
-time to analyze all statements types.}
+\end{enumerate}
+\end{multicols}
-\subsection{Grand example}
-\todoin{Change title?}
+\begin{comment}
+5 if (bool) {
+6 a.foo();
+7 a = new A();
+8 a.bar();
+9 }
+10
+11 a.foo();
+12 a.bar();
+13
+14 switch (val) {
+15 case 1:
+16 b.a.foo();
+17 b.a.bar();
+18 break;
+19 default:
+20 a.foo();
+21 }
+\end{comment}
-\begin{listing}
- \begin{minted}[linenos]{java}
- public class C {
- public void foo() {
-
+The candidates ordered 5-8 all have unfixes in them, therefore they are ordered
+last. None of the candidates ordered 1-4 have multiple possible targets. The
+only interesting discussion is now why $(16,17)$ was favored over $(11,12)$.
+This is because the prefix \code{b.a} enclosing the move target of selection
+$(16,17)$ has one more segment than the prefix \code{a} of $(11,12)$.
+
+The selection is now extracted into a new method \method{gen\_123} and then
+moved to class \type{B}, since that is the type of the variable \var{b} that is
+the target from the chosen refactoring candidate. The name of the method has a
+randomly generated suffix. In the refactoring implementation, the extracted
+methods follow the pattern \code{generated\_<long>}, where \code{<long>} is a
+pseudo-random long value. This is shortened here to make the example readable.
+The result after the refactoring is shown in \myref{lst:grandExampleResult}.
+
+\begin{listing}[htb]
+ \begin{multicols}{2}
+ \begin{minted}[linenos]{java}
+class C {
+ A a; B b; boolean bool;
+
+ void method(int val) {
+ if (bool) {
+ a.foo();
+ a = new A();
+ a.bar();
}
- }
+ a.foo();
+ a.bar();
+
+ switch (val) {
+ case 1:
+ b.gen_123(this);
+ break;
+ default:
+ a.foo();
+ }
+ }
+}
\end{minted}
-\caption{The grand example}
-\label{lst:grandExample}
-\end{listing}
+\columnbreak
+
+ \begin{minted}[]{java}
+public class B {
+ A a;
+ public void gen_123(C c) {
+ a.foo();
+ a.bar();
+ }
+}
+\end{minted}
+ \end{multicols}
+ \caption{The result after refactoring the class \type{C} of
+ \myref{lst:grandExample} with the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring with
+ $((16,17), \texttt{b.a}, f(2))$ as input.}
+\label{lst:grandExampleResult}
+\end{listing}
\chapter{Refactorings in Eclipse JDT: Design and
Shortcomings}\label{ch:jdt_refactorings}
This chapter will deal with some of the design behind refactoring support in
-\name{Eclipse}, and the JDT in specific. After which it will follow a section about
-shortcomings of the refactoring API in terms of composition of refactorings. The
-chapter will be concluded with a section telling some of the ways the
-implementation of refactorings in the JDT could have worked to facilitate
-composition of refactorings.
+\name{Eclipse}, and the JDT in specific. After which it will follow a section
+about shortcomings of the refactoring API in terms of composition of
+refactorings.
\section{Design}
The refactoring world of \name{Eclipse} can in general be separated into two parts: The
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.
+example, \code{``a.b''} is enclosing \code{``a''}, as is \code{``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 \code{``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.
The most suitable target for the refactoring is found by finding the prefix with
the most occurrences. If two prefixes have the same occurrence count, but they
-differ in length, the longest of them is chosen.
-
-\todoin{Clean up sections/subsections.}
+differ in the number of segments, the one with most segments is chosen.
\subsubsection{The
\type{ExtractAndMoveMethodExecutor}}\label{extractAndMoveMethodExecutor}
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
list of statements from a switch statement is therefore traversed, and the
statements between the case statements are grouped as separate lists.
-\Myref{lst:statementListsExample} shows an example of how the statement lists
-creator would generate lists for a simple method.
-
-\begin{listing}[h]
-\def\charwidth{5.7pt}
-\def\indent{4*\charwidth}
-\def\lineheight{\baselineskip}
-\def\mintedtop{\lineheight}
-
-\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay, yscale=-1]
- \tikzstyle{overlaybox}=[fill=lightgray,opacity=0.2]
- \draw[overlaybox] (0,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
- +(22*\charwidth,10*\lineheight);
- \draw[overlaybox] (\indent,\mintedtop+2*\lineheight) rectangle
- +(13*\charwidth,\lineheight);
- \draw[overlaybox] (2*\indent,\mintedtop+6*\lineheight) rectangle
- +(13*\charwidth,2*\lineheight);
- \draw[overlaybox] (2*\indent,\mintedtop+9*\lineheight) rectangle
- +(13*\charwidth,\lineheight);
-\end{tikzpicture}
-\begin{minted}{java}
-void method() {
- if (bool)
- b.bar();
-
- switch (val) {
- case 1:
- b.foo();
- c.foo();
- default:
- c.foo();
- }
-}
-\end{minted}
-\caption{Example of how the statement lists creator would group a simple method
-into lists of statements. Each highlighted rectangle represents a list.}
-\label{lst:statementListsExample}
-\end{listing}
-
-\paragraph{The text selections generator} generates text selections for each
-list of statements from the statement lists creator. The generator generates a
-text selection for every sub-sequence of statements in a list. For a sequence of
-statements, the first statement and the last statement span out a text
-selection.
-
-In practice, the text selections are calculated by only one traversal of the
-statement list. There is a set of generated text selections. For each statement,
-there is created a temporary set of selections, in addition to a text selection
-based on the offset and length of the statement. This text selection is added to
-the temporary set. Then the new selection is added with every selection from the
-set of generated text selections. These new selections are added to the
-temporary set. Then the temporary set of selections is added to the set of
-generated text selections. The result of adding two text selections is a new
-text selection spanned out by the two addends.
-
-\begin{listing}[h]
-\def\charwidth{5.7pt}
-\def\indent{4*\charwidth}
-\def\lineheight{\baselineskip}
-\def\mintedtop{\lineheight}
-
-\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay, yscale=-1]
- \tikzstyle{overlaybox}=[fill=lightgray,opacity=0.2]
-
- \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop) rectangle
- +(18*\charwidth,\lineheight);
-
- \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
- +(18*\charwidth,\lineheight);
-
- \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop+3*\lineheight) rectangle
- +(18*\charwidth,\lineheight);
-
- \draw[overlaybox] (\indent-3*\charwidth,\mintedtop) rectangle
- +(20*\charwidth,2*\lineheight);
-
- \draw[overlaybox] (3*\charwidth,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
- +(16*\charwidth,3*\lineheight);
-
- \draw[overlaybox] (\indent,\mintedtop) rectangle
- +(14*\charwidth,4*\lineheight);
-\end{tikzpicture}
-\begin{minted}{java}
- statement one;
- statement two;
- ...
- statement k;
-\end{minted}
-\caption{Example of how the text selections generator would generate text
- selections based on a lists of statements. Each highlighted rectangle
-represents a text selection.}
-\label{lst:textSelectionsExample}
-\end{listing}
-\todoin{fix \myref{lst:textSelectionsExample}? Text only? All
-sub-sequences\ldots}
-
-\paragraph{Finding the candidate} for the refactoring is done by analyzing all
-the generated text selection with the \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodAnalyzer}
-\see{extractAndMoveMethodAnalyzer}. If the analyzer generates a useful result,
-an \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodCandidate} is created from it, that is kept in a
-list of potential candidates. If no candidates are found, the
-\type{NoTargetFoundException} is thrown.
-
-Since only one of the candidates can be chosen, the analyzer must sort out which
-candidate to choose. The sorting is done by the static \method{sort} method of
-\type{Collections}. The comparison in this sorting is done by an
-\type{ExtractAndMoveMethodCandidateComparator}.
-\todoin{Write about the
-ExtractAndMoveMethodCandidateComparator/FavorNoUnfixesCandidateComparator}
-
-\paragraph{The complexity} of how many text selections that needs to be analyzed
-for a total of $n$ statements is bounded by $O(n^2)$.
-
-\begin{theorem}
-The number of text selections that need to be analyzed for each list of
-statements of length $n$, is exactly
-
-\begin{equation*}
- \sum_{i=1}^{n} i = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}
- \label{eq:complexityStatementList}
-\end{equation*}
-\label{thm:numberOfTextSelection}
-\end{theorem}
-
-\begin{proof}
- For $n=1$ this is trivial: $\frac{1(1+1)}{2} = \frac{2}{2} = 1$. One statement
- equals one selection.
-
- For $n=2$, you get one text selection for the first statement, one selection
- for the second statement, and one selection for the two of them combined.
- This equals three selections. $\frac{2(2+1)}{2} = \frac{6}{2} = 3$.
-
- For $n=3$, you get 3 selections for the two first statements, as in the case
- where $n=2$. In addition you get one selection for the third statement itself,
- and two more statements for the combinations of it with the two previous
- statements. This equals six selections. $\frac{3(3+1)}{2} = \frac{12}{2} = 6$.
-
- Assume that for $n=k$ there exists $\frac{k(k+1)}{2}$ text selections. Then we
- want to add selections for another statement, following the previous $k$
- statements. So, for $n=k+1$, we get one additional selection for the statement
- itself. Then we get one selection for each pair of the new selection and the
- previous $k$ statements. So the total number of selections will be the number
- of already generated selections, plus $k$ for every pair, plus one for the
- statement itself: $\frac{k(k+1)}{2} + k +
- 1 = \frac{k(k+1)+2k+2}{2} = \frac{k(k+1)+2(k+1)}{2} = \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2} =
- \frac{(k+1)((k+1)+1)}{2} = \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} i$
-\end{proof}
-
-%\definition{A \emph{body of statements} is a sequence of statements where every
-%statement may have sub-statements.}
-\todoin{Define ``body of statements''?}
-
-\begin{theorem}
- The number of text selections for a body of statements is maximized if all the
- statements are at the same level.
- \label{thm:textSelectionsMaximized}
-\end{theorem}
-
-\begin{proof}
- Assume we have a body of, in total, $k$ statements. Then, the sum of the
- lengths of all the lists of statements in the body, is also $k$. Let
- $\{l,\ldots,m,(k-l-\ldots-m)\}$ be the lengths of the lists of statements in
- the body, with $l+\ldots+m<k \Rightarrow \forall i \in \{l,\ldots,m\} : i < k$.
-
- Then, the number of text selections that are generated for the $k$ statements
- is
-
- {
- \small
- \begin{align*}
- \frac{l(l+1)}{2} + \ldots + \frac{m(m+1)}{2} +
- \frac{(k-l-\ldots-m)((k-l-\ldots-m)+ 1)}{2} = \\
- \frac{l^2+l}{2} + \ldots + \frac{m^2+m}{2} + \frac{k^2 - 2kl - \ldots - 2km +
- l^2 + \ldots + m^2 + k - l - \ldots - m}{2} = \\
- \frac{2l^2 - 2kl + \ldots + 2m^2 - 2km + k^2 + k}{2}
- \end{align*}
- }
-
- \noindent It then remains to show that this inequality holds:
+The highlighted part of \myref{lst:grandExample} shows an example of how the
+statement lists creator would separate a method body into lists of statements.
- \begin{align*}
- \frac{2l^2 - 2kl + \ldots + 2m^2 - 2km + k^2 + k}{2} < \frac{k(k+1)}{2} =
- \frac{k^2 + k}{2}
- \end{align*}
+\paragraph{The text selections generator} generates text selections for each
+list of statements from the statement lists creator. The generator generates a
+text selection for every sub-sequence of statements in a list. For a sequence of
+statements, the first statement and the last statement span out a text
+selection.
- \noindent By multiplication by $2$ on both sides, and by removing the equal
- parts, we get
+In practice, the text selections are calculated by only one traversal of the
+statement list. There is a set of generated text selections. For each statement,
+there is created a temporary set of selections, in addition to a text selection
+based on the offset and length of the statement. This text selection is added to
+the temporary set. Then the new selection is added with every selection from the
+set of generated text selections. These new selections are added to the
+temporary set. Then the temporary set of selections is added to the set of
+generated text selections. The result of adding two text selections is a new
+text selection spanned out by the two addends.
- \begin{align*}
- 2l^2 - 2kl + \ldots + 2m^2 - 2km < 0
- \end{align*}
+\begin{comment}
+\begin{listing}[h]
+\def\charwidth{5.7pt}
+\def\indent{4*\charwidth}
+\def\lineheight{\baselineskip}
+\def\mintedtop{\lineheight}
- Since $\forall i \in \{l,\ldots,m\} : i < k$, we have that $\forall i \in
- \{l,\ldots,m\} : 2ki > 2i^2$, so all the pairs of parts on the form $2i^2-2ki$
- are negative. In sum, the inequality holds.
+\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay, yscale=-1]
+ \tikzstyle{overlaybox}=[fill=lightgray,opacity=0.2]
-\end{proof}
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop) rectangle
+ +(18*\charwidth,\lineheight);
-Therefore, the complexity for the number of selections that needs to be analyzed
-for a body of $n$ statements is $O\bigl(\frac{n(n+1)}{2}\bigr) = O(n^2)$.
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(18*\charwidth,\lineheight);
+
+ \draw[overlaybox] (2*\charwidth,\mintedtop+3*\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(18*\charwidth,\lineheight);
+ \draw[overlaybox] (\indent-3*\charwidth,\mintedtop) rectangle
+ +(20*\charwidth,2*\lineheight);
-\begin{comment}
-\subsection{Finding the IMethod}\label{postExtractExecution}
-\todoin{Rename section. Write??}
+ \draw[overlaybox] (3*\charwidth,\mintedtop+\lineheight) rectangle
+ +(16*\charwidth,3*\lineheight);
+
+ \draw[overlaybox] (\indent,\mintedtop) rectangle
+ +(14*\charwidth,4*\lineheight);
+\end{tikzpicture}
+\begin{minted}{java}
+ statement one;
+ statement two;
+ ...
+ statement k;
+\end{minted}
+\caption{Example of how the text selections generator would generate text
+ selections based on a lists of statements. Each highlighted rectangle
+represents a text selection.}
+\label{lst:textSelectionsExample}
+\end{listing}
+\todoin{fix \myref{lst:textSelectionsExample}? Text only? All
+sub-sequences\ldots}
\end{comment}
+\paragraph{Finding the candidate} for the refactoring is done by analyzing all
+the generated text selection with the \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodAnalyzer}
+\see{extractAndMoveMethodAnalyzer}. If the analyzer generates a useful result,
+an \type{ExtractAndMoveMethodCandidate} is created from it, that is kept in a
+list of potential candidates. If no candidates are found, the
+\type{NoTargetFoundException} is thrown.
+
+Since only one of the candidates can be chosen, the analyzer must sort out which
+candidate to choose. The sorting is done by the static \method{sort} method of
+\type{Collections}. The comparison in this sorting is done by an
+\type{ExtractAndMoveMethodCandidateComparator}.
+\todoin{Write about the
+ExtractAndMoveMethodCandidateComparator/FavorNoUnfixesCandidateComparator}
+
\subsection{The Prefix Class}
This class exists mainly for holding data about a prefix, such as the expression
encountered statement with the end offset of the previous statement found.
\section{Checkers}\label{checkers}
-\todoin{Check out ExtractMethodAnalyzer from ExtractMethodRefactoring}
The checkers are a range of classes that checks that text selections complies
with certain criteria. All checkers operates under the assumption that the code
they check is free from compilation errors. If a
The checker visits all nodes of type \type{ClassInstanceCreation} within a
selection. For all of these nodes, if its parent also is a class instance
creation, it accepts a visitor that throws a
-\type{IllegalExpressionFoundException} if it enclounters a name that is a field
+\type{IllegalExpressionFoundException} if it encounters a name that is a field
reference.
\subsection{The InstantiationOfNonStaticInnerClassChecker}
If the selection is free from return statements, then the checker validates. So
this is the first thing the checker investigates.
-If the checker proceedes any further, it is because the selection contains one
+If the checker proceeds any further, it is because the selection contains one
or more return statements. The next test is therefore to check if the last
statement of the selection ends in either a return or a throw statement. The
responsibility for checking that the last statement of the selection eventually
\chapter{Case Studies}
In this chapter I am going to present a few case studies. This is done to give
-an impression of how the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring performs when giving
-it a larger project to take on. I will try to answer where it lacks, in terms of
-completeness, as well as showing its effect on refactored source code.
+an impression of how the search-based \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring
+performs when giving it a larger project to take on. I will try to answer where
+it lacks, in terms of completeness, as well as showing its effect on refactored
+source code.
The first and primary case, is refactoring source code from the \name{Eclipse
JDT UI} project. The project is chosen because it is a real project, still in
For conducting these experiments, three tools are used. Two of the ``tools''
both uses Eclipse as their platform. The first is our own tool,
written to be able to run the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring as a batch
-prosess, analyzing and refactoring many methods after each other. The second is
+process, analyzing and refactoring many methods after each other. The second is
JUnit, that is used for running the projects own unit tests on the target code
both before and after it is refactored. The last tool that is used is a code
quality management tool, called \name{SonarQube}. It can be used to perform
Object Oriented Design}\citing{metricsSuite1994}. The max value for the rule
is chosen on the background of an empirical study by Raed Shatnawi, that
concludes that the number 9 is the most useful threshold for the CBO
- metric\citing{shatnawiQuantitative2010}.
+ metric\citing{shatnawiQuantitative2010}. This study is also performed on
+ Eclipse source code, so this threshold value should be particularly well
+ suited for the Eclipse JDT UI case in this chapter.
\item[Control flow statements \ldots{} should not be nested too deeply] is
a rule that is meant to counter ``Spaghetti code''. It measures the nesting
within the limits of these tests.
\section{Case 1: The Eclipse JDT UI project}
+This case is the ultimate test for our \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring. The
+target source code is massive. With its over 300,000 lines of code and over
+25,000 methods, it is formidable task to perform automated changes on it. There
+should be plenty of situations where things can go wrong, and, as we shall see
+later, they do.
+
+I will start by presenting some statistics from the refactoring execution,
+before I pick apart the \name{SonarQube} analysis and conclude by commenting on
+the results from the unit tests. The configuration for the experiment is
+specified in \myref{tab:configurationCase1}.
\begin{table}[htb]
- \caption{Parameters for Case 1.}
- \label{tab:dataCase1}
+ \caption{Configuration for Case 1.}
+ \label{tab:configurationCase1}
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}>{\bfseries}L{0.67}L{1.33}@{}}
\toprule
Project & org.eclipse.jdt.ui \\
Repository & git://git.eclipse.org/gitroot/jdt/eclipse.jdt.ui.git \\
Commit & f218388fea6d4ec1da7ce22432726c244888bb6b \\
+ Branch & R3\_8\_maintenance \\
+ Tests suites & org.eclipse.jdt.ui.tests.AutomatedSuite,
+ org.eclipse.jdt.ui.tests.refactoring.all.\-AllAllRefactoringTests \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
+\subsection{Statistics}
+The statistics gathered during the refactoring execution is presented in
+\myref{tab:case1Statistics}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Statistics after batch refactoring the Eclipse JDT UI project with
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
+\subsubsection{Execution time}
+I consider the total execution time of approximately 1.5 hours as being
+acceptable. It clearly makes the batch process unsuitable for doing any
+on-demand analysis or changes, but it is good enough for running periodic jobs,
+like over-night analysis.
+
+As the statistics show, 75\% of the total time goes into making the actual code
+changes. The time consumers are here the primitive \ExtractMethod and
+\MoveMethod refactorings. Included in the change time is the parsing and
+precondition checking done by the refactorings, as well as textual changes done
+to files on disk. All this parsing and disk access is time-consuming, and
+constitute a large part of the change time.
+
+In comparison, the pure analysis time, used to find suitable candidates, only
+make up for 15\% of the total time consumed. This includes analyzing almost
+600,000 text selections, while the number of attempted executions of the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring are only about 2,500. So the number of
+executed primitive refactorings are approximately 5,000. Assuming the time used
+on miscellaneous tasks are used mostly for parsing source code for the analysis,
+we can say that the time used for analyzing code is at most 25\% of the total
+time. This means that for every primitive refactoring executed, we can analyze
+around 360 text selections. So, with an average of about 21 text selections per
+method, it is reasonable to say that we can analyze over 15 methods in the time
+it takes to perform a primitive refactoring.
+
+\subsubsection{Refactoring candidates}
+Out of the 27,667 methods that was analyzed, 2,552 methods contained selections
+that was considered candidates for the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring. This
+is roughly 9\% off the methods in the project. These 9\% of the methods had on
+average 14.4 text selections that was considered considered possible refactoring
+candidates.
+
+\subsubsection{Executed refactorings}
+2,469 out of 2,552 attempts on executing the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring
+was successful, giving a success rate of 96.7\%. The failure rate of 3.3\% stem
+from situations where the analysis finds a candidate selection, but the change
+execution fails. This failure could be an exception that was thrown, and the
+refactoring aborts. It could also be the precondition checking for one of the
+primitive refactorings that gives us an error status, meaning that if the
+refactoring proceeds, the code will contain compilation errors afterwards,
+forcing the composite refactoring to abort. This means that if the
+\ExtractMethod refactoring fails, no attempt is done for the \MoveMethod
+refactoring. \todo{Redundant information? Put in benchmark chapter?}
+
+Out of the 2,552 \ExtractMethod refactorings that was attempted executed, 69 of
+them failed. This give a failure rate of 2.7\% for the primitive refactoring. In
+comparison, the \MoveMethod refactoring had a failure rate of 0.6 \% of the
+2,483 attempts on the refactoring.
+
+\subsection{\name{SonarQube} analysis}
+Results from the \name{SonarQube} analysis is shown in
+\myref{tab:case1ResultsProfile1}.
+
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Results for analyzing the Eclipse JDT UI project, before and after
the refactoring, with \name{SonarQube} and the \name{IFI Refaktor Case Study}
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
-\section{Case 2: Dogfooding}
+\subsubsection{Diversity in the number of entities analyzed}
+The analysis performed by \name{SonarQube} is reporting fewer methods than found
+by the pre-refactoring analysis. \name{SonarQube} discriminates between
+functions (methods) and accessors, so the 1,296 accessors play a part in this
+calculation. \name{SonarQube} also has the same definition as our plugin when
+it comes to how a class is defined. Therefore is seems like \name{SonarQube}
+misses 277 classes that our plugin handles. This can explain why the {SonarQube}
+report differs from our numbers by approximately 2,500 methods,
+
+\subsubsection{Complexity}
+On all complexity rules that works on the method level, the number of issues
+decreases with between 3.1\% and 6.5\% from before to after the refactoring. The
+average complexity of a method decreases from 3.6 to 3.3, which is an
+improvement of about 8.3\%. So, on the method level, the refactoring must be
+said to have a slightly positive impact.
+
+The improvement in complexity on the method level is somewhat traded for
+complexity on the class level. The complexity per class metric is worsen by 3\%
+from before to after. The issues for the ``Too many methods'' rule also
+increases by 14.5\%. These numbers indicate that the refactoring makes quite a
+lot of the classes a little more complex overall. This is the expected outcome,
+since the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring introduces almost 2,500 new methods
+into the project.
+
+The only number that can save the refactoring's impact on complexity on the
+class level, is the ``Avoid too complex class'' rule. It improves with 2.5\%,
+thus indicating that the complexity is moderately better distributed between the
+classes after the refactoring than before.
+
+\subsubsection{Coupling}
+One of the hopes when starting this project, was to be able to make a
+refactoring that could lower the coupling between classes. Better complexity at
+the method level is a not very unexpected byproduct of dividing methods into
+smaller parts. Lowering the coupling on the other hand, is a far greater task.
+This is also reflected in the results for the only coupling rule defined in the
+\name{SonarQube} quality profile, namely the ``Classes should not be coupled to
+too many
+other classes (Single Responsibility Principle)'' rule.
+
+The number of issues for the coupling rule is 1,098 before the refactoring, and
+1,199 afterwards. This is an increase in issues of 9.2\%, and a blow for this
+project. These numbers can be interpreted two ways. The first possibility is
+that our assumptions are wrong, and that increasing indirection does not
+decrease coupling between classes. The other possibility is that our analysis
+and choices of candidate text selections are not good enough. I vote for the
+second possibility. (Voting against the public opinion may also be a little
+bold.)
+
+What probably happens is, that many of the times the \ExtractAndMoveMethod
+refactoring is performed, the \MoveMethod refactoring ``drags'' with it
+references to classes that are unknown to the method destination. If it happens
+to be so lucky that it removes a dependency from one class, it might as well
+introduce three new dependencies to another class. In those situations that a
+class does not know about the originating class of a moved method, the
+\MoveMethod refactoring most certainly will introduce a dependency. This is
+because there is a
+bug\footnote{\url{https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show\_bug.cgi?id=228635}} in the
+refactoring, making it pass an instance of the originating class as a reference
+to the moved method, regardless of whether the reference is used in the method
+body or not.
+
+There is also the possibility that the heuristics used to find candidate text
+selections are not good enough, they most certainly are not. I wish I had more
+time to fine-tune them, and to complete the analysis part of the project, but
+this is simply not the case. This becomes even clearer when analyzing the unit
+test results for the after-code.
+
+\subsubsection{Totals}
+On the bright side, the total number of issues is lower after the refactoring
+than it was before. Before the refactoring, the total number of issues is
+8,270, and after it is 8,155. An improvement of only 1.4\%.
+
+Then \name{SonarQube} tells me that the total complexity has increased by
+2.9\%, and that the (more questionable) ``technical debt'' has increased from
+1,003.4 to 1,032.7 days, also a deterioration of 2.9\%. Although these numbers
+are similar, no correlation has been found between them.
+
+\subsection{Unit tests}
+The tests that have been run for the \name{Eclipse JDT UI} project, are the
+tests in the test suites specified as the main test suites on the JDT UI wiki
+page on how to contribute to the
+project\footnote{\url{https://wiki.eclipse.org/JDT\_UI/How\_to\_Contribute\#Unit\_Testing}}.
+
+\subsubsection{Before the refactoring}
+Running the tests for the before-code of Eclipse JDT UI yielded 4 errors and 3
+failures for the \type{AutomatedSuite} test suite (2,007 test cases), and 2
+errors and
+3 failures for the \type{AllAllRefactoringTests} test suite (3,816 test cases).
+
+\subsubsection{After the refactoring}
+The test results for the after-code of the Eclipse JDT UI project is another
+story. The reason for this is that during the setup for the unit tests, Eclipse
+now reports that the project contains 322 fatal errors, and a lot of errors that
+probably follows from these. This is another blow for this master's project.
+
+It has now been shown that the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring, in its current
+state, produces code that does not compile. Had these errors originated from
+only one bug, it would not have been much of a problem, but this is not the
+case. By only looking at some random compilation problems in the refactored code,
+I came up with at least four different bugs \todo{write bug reports?} that
+caused those problems. I then stopped looking for more, since some of the bugs
+would take more time to fix than I could justify using on them at this point.
+
+The only thing that can be said in my defence, is that all the compilation
+errors could have been avoided if the type of situations that causes them was
+properly handled by the primitive refactorings, that again are supported by the
+Eclipse JDT UI project. All of the four randomly found bugs that I mentioned
+before, are also weaknesses of the \MoveMethod refactoring. If the primitive
+refactorings had detected the up-coming errors
+in their precondition checking phase, the refactorings would have been aborted,
+since this is how the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring handles such situations.
+
+Of course, taking all possible situations into account is an immense task. This
+is one of the reasons for the failure. A complete analysis is too big of a task
+for this master's project to handle. Looking at it now, this comes as no
+surprise, since the task is obviously also too big for the creators of the
+primitive \MoveMethod refactoring. This shows that the underlying primitive
+refactorings are not complete enough to be fully relied upon for avoiding
+compilation errors.
+
+Considering all these problems, it is difficult to know how to interpret the
+unit test results from after refactoring the Eclipse JDT UI. The
+\type{AutomatedSuite} reported 565 errors and 5 failures. Three of the failures
+were the same as reported before the refactoring took place, so two of them are
+new. For these two cases it is not immediately apparent what makes them behave
+differently. The program is so complex that to analyze it to find this out, we
+might need more powerful methods than just manually analyzing its source code.
+This is somewhat characteristic for imperative programming: The programs are
+often hard to analyze and understand.
+
+For the \type{AllAllRefactoringTests} test suite, the three failures are gone,
+but the two errors have grown to 2,257 errors. I will not try to analyze those
+errors.
+
+What I can say, is that it is likely that the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring
+has introduced some unintended behavioral changes. Let us say that the
+refactoring introduces at least two behavior-altering changes for every 2,500
+executions. More than that is difficult to say about the behavior-preserving
+properties of the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring, at this point.
+
+\subsection{Conclusions}
+After automatically analyzing and executing the \ExtractAndMoveMethod
+refactoring for all the methods in the Eclipse JDT UI project, the results does
+not look that promising. For this case, the refactoring seems almost unusable as
+it is now. The error rate and measurements done tells us this.
+
+The refactoring makes the code a little less complex at the method level. But
+this is merely a side effect of extracting methods, and holds little scientific
+value. When it comes to the overall complexity, it is increased, although it is
+slightly better spread among the classes.
+
+The analysis done before the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring, is currently not
+complete enough to make the refactoring useful. It introduces too many errors in
+the code, and the code may change it's behavior. It also remains to prove that
+large scale refactoring with it can decrease coupling between classes. A better
+analysis may prove this, but in its present state, the opposite is the fact. The
+coupling measurements done by \name{SonarQube} shows this.
+
+On the bright side, the performance of the refactoring process is not that bad.
+It shows that it is possible to make a tool the way we do, if we can make the
+tool do anything useful. As long as the analysis phase is not going to involve
+anything that uses to much disk access, a lot of analysis can be done in a
+reasonable amount of time.
+
+The time used on performing the actual changes excludes a trial and error
+approach with the tools used in this master's project. In a trial and error
+approach, you could for instance be using the primitive refactorings used in
+this project to refactor code, and only then make decisions based on the effect,
+possibly shown by traditional software metrics. The problem with the approach
+taken in this project, compared to a trial and error approach, is that using
+heuristics beforehand is much more complicated. But on the other hand, a trial
+and error approach would still need to face the challenges of producing code
+that does compile without errors. If using refactorings that could produce
+in-memory changes, a trial and error approach could be made more efficient.
+
+\section{Case 2: The \type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor} project}
+In this case we will see a form of the ``dogfooding'' methodology used, when
+refactoring our own \type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor} project with the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
+
+In this case I will try to point out some differences from case 1, and how they
+impact the execution of the benchmark. The refaktor project is 39 times smaller
+than the Eclipse JDT UI project, measured in lines of code. This will make
+things a bit more transparent. It will therefore be interesting to see if this
+case can shed light on any aspect of our project that was lost in the larger
+case 1.
+
+The configuration for the experiment is specified in
+\myref{tab:configurationCase2}.
+
+\begin{table}[htb]
+ \caption{Configuration for Case 2.}
+ \label{tab:configurationCase2}
+ \centering
+ \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}>{\bfseries}L{0.67}L{1.33}@{}}
+ \toprule
+ \spancols{2}{Benchmark data} \\
+ \midrule
+ Launch configuration & CaseStudyDogfooding.launch \\
+ Project & no.uio.ifi.refaktor.benchmark \\
+ Repository & gitolite@git.uio.no:ifi-stolz-refaktor \\
+ Commit & 43c16c04520746edd75f8dc2a1935781d3d9de6c \\
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{2}{Input data} \\
+ \midrule
+ Project & no.uio.ifi.refaktor \\
+ Repository & gitolite@git.uio.no:ifi-stolz-refaktor \\
+ Commit & 43c16c04520746edd75f8dc2a1935781d3d9de6c \\
+ Branch & master \\
+ Test configuration & no.uio.ifi.refaktor.tests/ExtractTest.launch \\
+ \bottomrule
+ \end{tabularx}
+\end{table}
+
+\subsection{Statistics}
+The statistics gathered during the refactoring execution is presented in
+\myref{tab:case2Statistics}.
+
+\begin{table}[htb]
+ \caption{Statistics after batch refactoring the \type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor}
+project with the \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.}
+ \label{tab:case2Statistics}
+ \centering
+ \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}>{\bfseries}L{1.5}R{0.5}@{}}
+ \toprule
+ \spancols{2}{Time used} \\
+ \midrule
+ Total time & 1m15s \\
+ Analysis time & 0m18s (24\%) \\
+ Change time & 0m47s (63\%) \\
+ Miscellaneous tasks & 0m10s (14\%) \\
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{2}{Numbers of each type of entity analyzed} \\
+ \midrule
+ Packages & 33 \\
+ Compilation units & 154 \\
+ Types & 168 \\
+ Methods & 1,070 \\
+ Text selections & 8,609 \\
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{2}{Numbers for \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring candidates} \\
+ \midrule
+ Methods chosen as candidates & 58 \\
+ Methods NOT chosen as candidates & 1,012 \\
+ Candidate selections (multiple per method) & 227 \\
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{2}{\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactorings executed} \\
+ \midrule
+ Fully executed & 53 \\
+ Not fully executed & 5 \\
+ Total attempts & 58 \\
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{2}{Primitive refactorings executed} \\
+ \spancols{2}{\small \ExtractMethod refactorings} \\
+ \midrule
+ Performed & 56 \\
+ Not performed & 2 \\
+ Total attempts & 58 \\
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{2}{\small \MoveMethod refactorings} \\
+ \midrule
+ Performed & 53 \\
+ Not performed & 3 \\
+ Total attempts & 56 \\
+
+ \bottomrule
+ \end{tabularx}
+\end{table}
+
+\subsubsection{Differences}
+There are some differences between the two projects that make them a little
+difficult to compare by performance.
+
+\paragraph{Different complexity.}
+Although the JDT UI project is 39 times greater than the refaktor project in
+terms of lines of code, it is only about 26 times its size measured in numbers
+of methods. This means that the methods in the refaktor project are smaller in
+average than in the JDT project. This is also reflected in the \name{SonarQube}
+report, where the complexity per method for the JDT project is 3.6, while the
+refaktor project has a complexity per method of 2.1.
+
+\paragraph{Number of selections per method.}
+The analysis for the JDT project processed 21 text selections per method in
+average. This number for the refaktor project is only 8 selections per method
+analyzed. This is a direct consequence of smaller methods.
+
+\paragraph{Different candidates to methods ratio.}
+The differences in how the projects are factored are also reflected in the
+ratios for how many methods that are chosen as candidates compared to the total
+number of methods analyzed. For the JDT project, 9\% of the methods was
+considered to be candidates, while for the refaktor project, only 5\% of the
+methods was chosen.
+
+\paragraph{The average number of possible candidate selection.}
+For the methods that are chosen as candidates, the average number of possible
+candidate selections for these methods differ quite much. For the JDT project,
+the number of possible candidate selections for these methods were 14.44
+selections per method, while the candidate methods in the refaktor project had
+only 3.91 candidate selections to choose from, in average.
+
+\subsubsection{Execution time}
+The differences in complexity, and the different candidate methods to total
+number of methods ratios, is shown in the distributions of the execution times.
+For the JDT project, 75\% of the total time was used on the actual changes,
+while for the refaktor project, this number was only 63\%.
+
+For the JDT project, the benchmark used on average 0.21 seconds per method in
+the project, while for the refaktor project it used only 0.07 seconds per
+method. So the process used 3 times as much time per method for the JDT project
+than for the refaktor project.
+
+While the JDT project is 39 times larger than the refaktor project measured in
+lines of code, the benchmark used about 79 times as long time on it than for the
+refaktor project. Relatively, this is about twice as long.
+
+Since the details of these execution times are not that relevant to this
+master's project, only their magnitude, I will leave them here.
+
+\subsubsection{Executed refactorings}
+For the composite \ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring performed in case 2, 53
+successful attempts out of 58 gives a success rate of 91.4\%. This is 5.3
+percentage points worse than for case 1.
+
+\subsection{\name{SonarQube} analysis}
+Results from the \name{SonarQube} analysis is shown in
+\myref{tab:case2ResultsProfile1}.
+
+Not much is to be said about these results. The trends in complexity and
+coupling are the same. We end up a little worse after the refactoring process
+than before.
+
+\begin{table}[htb]
+ \caption{Results for analyzing the \var{no.uio.ifi.refaktor} project, before
+ and after the refactoring, with \name{SonarQube} and the \name{IFI Refaktor
+ Case Study} quality profile. (Bold numbers are better.)}
+ \label{tab:case2ResultsProfile1}
+ \centering
+ \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}>{\bfseries}L{1.5}R{0.25}R{0.25}@{}}
+ \toprule
+ \textnormal{Number of issues for each rule} & Before & After \\
+ \midrule
+ Avoid too complex class & 1 & 1 \\
+ Classes should not be coupled to too many other classes (Single
+ Responsibility Principle) & \textbf{29} & 34 \\
+ Control flow statements \ldots{} should not be nested too deeply & 24 &
+ \textbf{21} \\
+ Methods should not be too complex & 17 & \textbf{15} \\
+ Methods should not have too many lines & 41 & \textbf{40} \\
+ NPath Complexity & 3 & 3 \\
+ Too many methods & \textbf{13} & 15 \\
+ \midrule
+ Total number of issues & \textbf{128} & 129 \\
+ \midrule
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{3}{Complexity} \\
+ \midrule
+ Per function & 2.1 & 2.1 \\
+ Per class & \textbf{12.5} & 12.9 \\
+ Per file & \textbf{13.8} & 14.2 \\
+ \midrule
+ Total complexity & \textbf{2,089} & 2,148 \\
+ \midrule
+ \midrule
+ \spancols{3}{Numbers of each type of entity analyzed} \\
+ \midrule
+ Files & 151 & 151 \\
+ Classes & 167 & 167 \\
+ Functions & 987 & 1,045 \\
+ Accessors & 35 & 30 \\
+ Statements & 3,355 & 3,416 \\
+ Lines of code & 8,238 & 8,460 \\
+ \midrule
+ Technical debt (in days) & \textbf{19.0} & 20.7 \\
+ \bottomrule
+ \end{tabularx}
+\end{table}
+
+\subsection{Unit tests}
+The tests used for this case are the same that has been developed throughout the
+master's project.
+
+The code that was refactored for this case suffered from some of the problems
+discovered in case 1. This means that the after-code for case 2 also contained
+compilation errors, but they were not as many. The code contained only 6 errors
+that made the code not compile.
+
+All of the errors made, originated from the same bug. It is a bug that happens
+in situation where a class instance creation is moved from between packages, and
+the class for the instance is package-private. The \MoveMethod refactoring does
+not detect that there will be a visibility problem, and neither does it promote
+the package-private class to be public.
+
+Since the errors was easy to fix manually, I corrected them and ran the unit
+tests as planned. Before the refactoring, all tests passed. All tests also
+passed after the refactoring, with the six error corrections. Since the
+corrections done is not of a kind that could make the behavior of the program
+change, it is likely that the refactorings done to the
+\type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor} project did not change its behavior. This is also
+supported by the informal experiment presented next.
+
+\subsection{An informal experiment}
+To complete the task of ``eating my own dog food'', I conducted an informal
+experiment where I used the refactored version of the \type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor}
+project, with the corrections, to again refaktor ``itself''.
+
+The experiment produced code containing the same six errors as after the
+previous experiment. I also compared the after-code from the two experiments
+with a diff-tool. The only differences found was different method names. This is
+expected, since the method names are randomly generated by the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring.
+
+The outcome of this simple experiment makes me more confident that the
+\ExtractAndMoveMethod refactoring made only behavior-preserving changes to the
+\type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor} project, apart from the compilation errors.
+
+\subsection{Conclusions}
+The differences in complexity between the Eclipse JDT UI project and the
+\type{no.uio.ifi.refaktor} project, clearly influenced the differences in their
+execution times. This is mostly because fewer of the methods were chosen to be
+refactored for the refaktor project than for the JDT project. What this makes
+difficult, is to know if there are any severe performance penalties associated
+with refactoring on a large project compared to a small one.
+
+The trends in the \name{SonarQube} analysis are the same for this case as for
+the previous one. This gives more confidence in the these results.
+
+By refactoring our own code and using it again to refactor our code, we showed
+that it is possible to write an automated composite refactoring that works for
+many cases. That it probably did not alter the behavior of a smaller project
+shows us nothing more than that though, and might just be a coincidence.
+
+\section{Summary}
+\todoin{Write? Or wrap up in final conclusions?}
\chapter{Benchmarking}\label{sec:benchmarking}
-\todoin{Better name than ``benchmarking''?}
This part of the master's project is located in the \name{Eclipse} project
\code{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.benchmark}. The purpose of it is to run the equivalent
of the \type{SearchBasedExtractAndMoveMethodChanger}
selection the variable is referenced in, so that we can find it by parsing the
source code and search for it when it is needed.
+\section{Handling failures}
+\todoin{write}
+
\chapter{Technicalities}
\subsection{The no.uio.ifi.refaktor project}
\subsubsection{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.analyze}
-This package, and its subpackages, contains code that is used for analyzing Java
-source code. The most important subpackages are presented below.
+This package, and its sub-packages, contains code that is used for analyzing
+Java source code. The most important sub-packages are presented below.
\begin{description}
\item[no.uio.ifi.refaktor.analyze.analyzers] \hfill \\
\end{description}
\subsubsection{no.uio.ifi.refaktor.change}
-This package, and its subpackages, contains functionality for manipulate source
+This package, and its sub-packages, contains functionality for manipulate source
code.
\begin{description}
and ``Code Coverage Trend'' reported by Jenkins.
-\chapter{Methodology}
-
-\section{Evolutionary design}
-In the programming work for this project, it have tried to use a design strategy
-called evolutionary design, also known as continuous or incremental
-design\citing{wiki_continuous_2014}. It is a software design strategy
-advocated by the Extreme Programming community. The essence of the strategy is
-that you should let the design of your program evolve naturally as your
-requirements change. This is seen in contrast with up-front design, where
-design decisions are made early in the process.
-
-The motivation behind evolutionary design is to keep the design of software as
-simple as possible. This means not introducing unneeded functionality into a
-program. You should defer introducing flexibility into your software, until it
-is needed to be able to add functionality in a clean way.
-
-Holding up design decisions, implies that the time will eventually come when
-decisions have to be made. The flexibility of the design then relies on the
-programmer's abilities to perform the necessary refactoring, and \his confidence
-in those abilities. From my experience working on this project, I can say that
-this confidence is greatly enhanced by having automated tests to rely on
-\see{tdd}.
-The choice of going for evolutionary design developed naturally. As Fowler
-points out in his article \tit{Is Design Dead?}, evolutionary design much
-resembles the ``code and fix'' development strategy\citing{fowler_design_2004}.
-A strategy that most of us have practiced in school. This was also the case when
-I first started this work. I had to learn the inner workings of Eclipse and its
-refactoring-related plugins. That meant a lot of fumbling around with code I did
-not know, in a trial and error fashion. Eventually I started writing tests for
-my code, and my design began to evolve.
+\chapter{Conclusions and Future Work}
+\todoin{Write}
-\section{Test-driven development}\label{tdd}
-As mentioned before, the project started out as a classic code and fix
-developmen process. My focus was aimed at getting something to work, rather than
-doing so according to best practice. This resulted in a project that got out of
-its starting blocks, but it was not accompanied by any tests. Hence it was soon
-difficult to make any code changes with the confidence that the program was
-still correct afterwards (assuming it was so before changing it). I always knew
-that I had to introduce some tests at one point, but this experience accelerated
-the process of leading me onto the path of testing.
+\section{Future work}
-I then wrote tests for the core functionality of the plugin, and thus gained
-more confidence in the correctness of my code. I could now perform quite drastic
-changes without ``wetting my pants``. After this, nearly all of the semantic
-changes done to the business logic of the project, or the addition of new
-functionality, was made in a test-driven manner. This means that before
-performing any changes, I would define the desired functionality through a set
-of tests. I would then run the tests to check that they were run and that they
-did not pass. Then I would do any code changes necessary to make the tests
-pass. The definition of how the program is supposed to operate is then captured
-by the tests. However, this does not prove the correctness of the analysis
-leading to the test definitions.
-\section{Continuous integration}
-\todoin{???}
+\appendix
\chapter{Eclipse Bugs Found}
analysis stage of our \refa{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{Conclusions and Future Work}
-\todoin{Write}
-
-\section{Future work}
-
-\chapter{Related Work}
-
-\section{Safer refactorings}
-\todoin{write}
-
-\section{The compositional paradigm of refactoring}
-This paradigm builds upon the observation of Vakilian et
-al.\citing{vakilian2012}, that of the many automated refactorings existing in
-modern IDEs, the simplest ones are dominating the usage statistics. The report
-mainly focuses on \name{Eclipse} as the tool under investigation.
-
-The paradigm is described almost as the opposite of automated composition of
-refactorings \see{compositeRefactorings}. It works by providing the programmer
-with easily accessible primitive refactorings. These refactorings shall be
-accessed via keyboard shortcuts or quick-assist menus\footnote{Think
-quick-assist with Ctrl+1 in \name{Eclipse}} and be promptly executed, opposed to in the
-currently dominating wizard-based refactoring paradigm. They are meant to
-stimulate composing smaller refactorings into more complex changes, rather than
-doing a large upfront configuration of a wizard-based refactoring, before
-previewing and executing it. The compositional paradigm of refactoring is
-supposed to give control back to the programmer, by supporting \himher with an
-option of performing small rapid changes instead of large changes with a lesser
-degree of control. The report authors hope this will lead to fewer unsuccessful
-refactorings. It also could lower the bar for understanding the steps of a
-larger composite refactoring and thus also help in figuring out what goes wrong
-if one should choose to op in on a wizard-based refactoring.
-
-Vakilian and his associates have performed a survey of the effectiveness of the
-compositional paradigm versus the wizard-based one. They claim to have found
-evidence of that the \emph{compositional paradigm} outperforms the
-\emph{wizard-based}. It does so by reducing automation, which seem
-counterintuitive. Therefore they ask the question ``What is an appropriate level
-of automation?'', and thus questions what they feel is a rush toward more
-automation in the software engineering community.
-
-
\backmatter{}
\printglossaries
\printbibliography
git://git.uio.no / ifi-stolz-refaktor.git / blobdiff