FASE08.ppt
0 likes253 views
This document describes a method called DECOR for domain analysis of design defects, specification of defects, and generation of detection algorithms. The method involves 5 steps: 1) domain analysis of defects based on literature, 2) specification of each defect using a domain-specific language, 3) generation of operational specifications from the formal specifications, 4) detection of suspicious code elements based on the operational specifications, and 5) identification of classes affected by design defects. The goal is to provide an explicit process for defect specification and validation of generated detection algorithms.
![What Kind of Defects ?
Design Patterns are “good” solutions to recurring design problems
Design Defects (DDs)
are “bad” solutions to recurring problems
2 categories:
High-level (global) problems: antipatterns [Brown 98]
Low-level (local) problems: code smells* [Fowler 99]
“ deviations from specifications or expectations which might lead to
≠
failures in operation ”
* Some code smells can be considered as high-level DDs
Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 4](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/fase08-ppt-130410194437-phpapp01/85/FASE08-ppt-4-320.jpg)
![What Kind of Defects ?
2 examples of high-level DDs [Brown 98]
Blob (God Class)
“ Procedural-style design leads to one object with a
lion’s share of the responsibilities while most other
objects only hold data or execute simple processes ”
Large controller class
Many fields and methods with a low cohesion*
Dependent on the data stored in associated
data classes
*How closely the methods are related to the instance
variables in the class.
Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 5](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/fase08-ppt-130410194437-phpapp01/85/FASE08-ppt-5-320.jpg)
![What Kind of Defects ?
2 examples of high-level DDs [Brown 98]
Spaghetti Code
“ Ad hoc software structure makes it difficult to extend
and optimize code. ”
Procedural thinking in OO programming
Lack of structure : no inheritance, no reuse, no
polymorphism
Long methods process oriented with no
parameters and low cohesion
Classes with procedural names
Use of global variables for processing
Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 6](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/fase08-ppt-130410194437-phpapp01/85/FASE08-ppt-6-320.jpg)
FASE08.ppt
- 1. A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms Naouel Moha, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Anne-Françoise Le Meur, Laurence Duchien Ptidej Team, GEODES, Université de Montréal, Canada LIFL, INRIA Lille - Nord Europe / ADAM Team, Université de Lille, France FASE’08 29 March - 6 April, 2008
- 2. Context Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 2
- 3. Context Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 3
- 4. What Kind of Defects ? Design Patterns are “good” solutions to recurring design problems Design Defects (DDs) are “bad” solutions to recurring problems 2 categories: High-level (global) problems: antipatterns [Brown 98] Low-level (local) problems: code smells* [Fowler 99] “ deviations from specifications or expectations which might lead to ≠ failures in operation ” * Some code smells can be considered as high-level DDs Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 4
- 5. What Kind of Defects ? 2 examples of high-level DDs [Brown 98] Blob (God Class) “ Procedural-style design leads to one object with a lion’s share of the responsibilities while most other objects only hold data or execute simple processes ” Large controller class Many fields and methods with a low cohesion* Dependent on the data stored in associated data classes *How closely the methods are related to the instance variables in the class. Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 5
- 6. What Kind of Defects ? 2 examples of high-level DDs [Brown 98] Spaghetti Code “ Ad hoc software structure makes it difficult to extend and optimize code. ” Procedural thinking in OO programming Lack of structure : no inheritance, no reuse, no polymorphism Long methods process oriented with no parameters and low cohesion Classes with procedural names Use of global variables for processing Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 6
- 7. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 7
- 8. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 8
- 9. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Contributions Domain analysis of DDs and domain-specific language Explicit process for the specifications Validation : first study on both precision and recall Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 9
- 10. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 10
- 11. DECOR Method Domain Analysis On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT The Spaghetti Code is an antipattern that is characteristic Chapter 1 of procedural thinking in object- oriented programming. Spaghetti Code is revealed by classes with Descriptions of antipatterns no structure, declaring long methods with no parameters, and utilising global variables for processing. Names of classes and methods may suggest procedural programming. Spaghetti Code does not exploit and prevents the use of object- orientation mechanisms, polymorphism and inheritance. Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 11
- 12. DECOR Method Domain Analysis On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT The Spaghetti Code is an antipattern that is characteristic Chapter 1 of procedural thinking in object- oriented programming. Spaghetti Code is revealed by classes with Descriptions of antipatterns no structure, declaring long methods with no parameters, and utilising global variables for Identification of Key Concepts processing. Names of classes and methods may suggest procedural programming. Spaghetti Code does not exploit and prevents the use of object- orientation mechanisms, polymorphism and inheritance. Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 12
- 13. DECOR Method Domain Analysis On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 13
- 14. DECOR Method Domain Analysis On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 14
- 15. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 15
- 16. DECOR Method Specifications On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT SADSL (Software Architectural Defect Specification Language) Language based on a meta-model for specifying DDs CODESMELL define LongMethod as METRIC LOC_METHOD with VERY HIGH and 10.0 ; CODESMELL define NoParameter as METRIC NMNOPARAM with VERY HIGH and 5.0 ; CODESMELL define NoInheritance as METRIC DIT with 1 and 0.0 ; CODESMELL define NoPolymorphism as STRUC NO_POLYMORPHISM ; CODESMELL define ProceduralName as LEXIC CLASS_NAME with (Make, Create, Exec) ; CODESMELL define GlobalVariable as STRUC USE_GLOBAL_VARIABLE ; ANTIPATTERN define SpaghettiCode as { ((LongMethod INTER NoParameter) INTER (NoInheritance UNION NoPolymorphism)) INTER (ProceduralName UNION UseGlobalVariable) } ; Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 16
- 17. DECOR Method Specifications On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT SADSL (Software Architectural Defect Specification Language) Language based on a meta-model for specifying DDs CODESMELL define LongMethod as METRIC LOC_METHOD with VERY HIGH and 10.0 ; CODESMELL define NoParameter as METRIC NMNOPARAM with VERY HIGH and 5.0 ; CODESMELL define NoInheritance as METRIC DIT with 1 and 0.0 ; CODESMELL define NoPolymorphism as STRUC NO_POLYMORPHISM ; CODESMELL define ProceduralName as LEXIC CLASS_NAME with (Make, Create, Exec) ; CODESMELL define GlobalVariable as STRUC USE_GLOBAL_VARIABLE ; ANTIPATTERN define SpaghettiCode as { ((LongMethod INTER NoParameter) INTER (NoInheritance UNION NoPolymorphism)) INTER (ProceduralName UNION UseGlobalVariable) } ; Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 17
- 18. DECOR Method Specifications On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Meta-model SADDL (Software Architectural Defect Definition Language) Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 18
- 19. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 19
- 20. Method DECOR Specification Generation Validation Algorithm Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 20
- 21. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 21
- 22. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 22
- 23. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Consistency and domain-specific analyses - Verify that specifications are not inconsistent, redundant, or incomplete - Ex: 2 rules with same names but different properties 2 rules with different names but identical properties Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 23
- 24. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Complexity : O((c+op) X n) SAD Framework c : number of properties - Meta-model to represent OO programs op : number of operators - Repository of metrics n : number of classes - Services to analyse structural relationships - Services to perform structural and lexical analyses Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 24
- 25. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT 1 public class <CODESMELL>Detection 2 extends CodeSmellDetection 3 implements ICodeSmellDetection { 4 public Set performDetection() { 5 IClass c = iteratorOnClasses.next(); 6 LOCofSetOfClasses.add( 7 Metrics.compute(<METRIC>, c)); 8 ... 9 BoxPlot boxPlot = new BoxPlot( 10 <METRIC>ofSetOfClasses, <FUZZINESS>); 11 Map setOfOutliers = 12 boxPlot.<ORDINAL_VALUE>(); 13 ... 14 suspiciousCodeSmells.add( new CodeSmell( 15 <CODESMELL>, setOfOutliers)); 16 ... 17 return suspiciousCodeSmells; 18 } Visitor Template Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 25
- 26. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Visitor Generated Code Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 26
- 27. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 27
- 28. Method DECOR Specification Processing Validation Detection Analysis Domain Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 28
- 29. DECOR Method Experiments On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Goal : Validate the generated algorithms in terms of precision and recall Xerces: 71,217 LOC, 513 classes and 162 interfaces Nb of Existing Detected Detection Defects Precision Recall classes Defects Defects Time Blob 39 (7,6%) 44 (8,6%) 88,6% 100% 2,45s Functional Decomp. 15 (2,9%) 29 (5,6%) 51,7% 100% 0,91s 513 Spaghetti Code 46 (9,0%) 76 (14,8%) 60,5% 100% 0,23s Swiss Army Knife 23 (4,5%) 56 (10,9%) 41,1% 100% 0,08s Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 29
- 30. Demonstration Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 30
- 31. Conclusion Method DECOR Automate the generation of detection algorithms from specifications written using a domain-specific language Contributions The domain-specific language defined from a domain analysis Explicit process for the generation of detection algorithms Validation in terms of precision and recall Future Work Experiments on other systems and defects Comparison with existing approaches Correction of defects (in progress) Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 31
- 32. Questions Contact: mohanaou@iro.umontreal.ca http://www-etud.iro.umontreal.ca/~mohanaou Thanks for your attention ! Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 32
- 33. DECOR Method Algorithm Generation On all defects On each defect On each system Source code Source code 1 2 3 4 5 Specification of the system of the system Processing Validation Vocabulary Detection Analysis Domain Text-based descriptions Specifications Operational Suspicious Classes having of design defects specifications classes design defects Taxonomy Brown et al. (1998) Demeyer (2002) Dudney (2003) Marinescu (2004) Marinescu (2004) Fowler (1999) Marinescu (2004) Alikacem (2006) Munro (2005) Riel (1996) Munro (2005) Travassos : manual detection (1999) Webster (1995) Alikacem (2006) Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT Box-plot for metrics with ordinal values Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 33