BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Eman Abdullah AlOmar

Eman Abdullah AlOmar contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringInformation RetrievalMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

An Exploratory Study on Refactoring Documentation in Issues Handling

Understanding the practice of refactoring documentation is of paramount importance in academia and industry. Issue tracking systems are used by most software projects enabling developers, quality assurance, managers, and users to submit feature requests and other tasks such as bug fixing and code review. Although recent studies explored how to document refactoring in commit messages, little is known about how developers describe their refactoring needs in issues. In this study, we aim at exploring developer-reported refactoring changes in issues to better understand what developers consider to be problematic in their code and how they handle it. Our approach relies on text mining 45,477 refactoring-related issues and identifying refactoring patterns from a diverse corpus of 77 Java projects by investigating issues associated with 15,833 refactoring operations and developers' explicit refactoring intention. Our results show that (1) developers mostly use move refactoring related terms/phrases to target refactoring-related issues; and (2) developers tend to explicitly mention the improvement of specific quality attributes and focus on duplicate code removal. We envision our findings enabling tool builders to support developers with automated documentation of refactoring changes in issues.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

AntiCopyPaster: Extracting Code Duplicates As Soon As They Are Introduced in the IDE

We developed a plugin for IntelliJ IDEA called AntiCopyPaster, which tracks the pasting of code fragments inside the IDE and suggests the appropriate Extract Method refactoring to combat the propagation of duplicates. Unlike the existing approaches, our tool is integrated with the developer's workflow, and pro-actively recommends refactorings. Since not all code fragments need to be extracted, we develop a classification model to make this decision. When a developer copies and pastes a code fragment, the plugin searches for duplicates in the currently opened file, waits for a short period of time to allow the developer to edit the code, and finally inferences the refactoring decision based on a number of features. Our experimental study on a large dataset of 18,942 code fragments mined from 13 Apache projects shows that AntiCopyPaster correctly recommends Extract Method refactorings with an F-score of 0.82. Furthermore, our survey of 59 developers reflects their satisfaction with the developed plugin's operation. The plugin and its source code are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/JetBrains-Research/anti-copy-paster. The demonstration video can be found on YouTube: https://youtu.be/_wwHg-qFjJY.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Code Review Practices for Refactoring Changes: An Empirical Study on OpenStack

Modern code review is a widely used technique employed in both industrial and open-source projects to improve software quality, share knowledge, and ensure adherence to coding standards and guidelines. During code review, developers may discuss refactoring activities before merging code changes in the code base. To date, code review has been extensively studied to explore its general challenges, best practices and outcomes, and socio-technical aspects. However, little is known about how refactoring is being reviewed and what developers care about when they review refactored code. Hence, in this work, we present a quantitative and qualitative study to understand what are the main criteria developers rely on to develop a decision about accepting or rejecting a submitted refactored code, and what makes this process challenging. Through a case study of 11,010 refactoring and non-refactoring reviews spread across OpenStack open-source projects, we find that refactoring-related code reviews take significantly longer to be resolved in terms of code review efforts. Moreover, upon performing a thematic analysis on a significant sample of the refactoring code review discussions, we built a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of 28 refactoring review criteria. We envision our findings reaffirming the necessity of developing accurate and efficient tools and techniques that can assist developers in the review process in the presence of refactorings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Refactoring Debt: Myth or Reality? An Exploratory Study on the Relationship Between Technical Debt and Refactoring

To meet project timelines or budget constraints, developers intentionally deviate from writing optimal code to feasible code in what is known as incurring Technical Debt (TD). Furthermore, as part of planning their correction, developers document these deficiencies as comments in the code (i.e., self-admitted technical debt or SATD). As a means of improving source code quality, developers often apply a series of refactoring operations to their codebase. In this study, we explore developers repaying this debt through refactoring operations by examining occurrences of SATD removal in the code of 76 open-source Java systems. Our findings show that TD payment usually occurs with refactoring activities and developers refactor their code to remove TD for specific reasons. We envision our findings supporting vendors in providing tools to better support developers in the automatic repayment of technical debt.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Refactoring Practices in the Context of Modern Code Review: An Industrial Case Study at Xerox

Modern code review is a common and essential practice employed in both industrial and open-source projects to improve software quality, share knowledge, and ensure conformance with coding standards. During code review, developers may inspect and discuss various changes including refactoring activities before merging code changes in the codebase. To date, code review has been extensively studied to explore its general challenges, best practices and outcomes, and socio-technical aspects. However, little is known about how refactoring activities are being reviewed, perceived, and practiced. This study aims to reveal insights into how reviewers develop a decision about accepting or rejecting a submitted refactoring request, and what makes such review challenging. We present an industrial case study with 24 professional developers at Xerox. Particularly, we study the motivations, documentation practices, challenges, verification, and implications of refactoring activities during code review. Our study delivers several important findings. Our results report the lack of a proper procedure to follow by developers when documenting their refactorings for review. Our survey with reviewers has also revealed several difficulties related to understanding the refactoring intent and implications on the functional and non-functional aspects of the software. In light of our findings, we recommended a procedure to properly document refactoring activities, as part of our survey feedback.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Toward the Automatic Classification of Self-Affirmed Refactoring

The concept of Self-Affirmed Refactoring (SAR) was introduced to explore how developers document their refactoring activities in commit messages, i.e., developers' explicit documentation of refactoring operations intentionally introduced during a code change. In our previous study, we have manually identified refactoring patterns and defined three main common quality improvement categories, including internal quality attributes, external quality attributes, and code smells, by only considering refactoring-related commits. However, this approach heavily depends on the manual inspection of commit messages. In this paper, we propose a two-step approach to first identify whether a commit describes developer-related refactoring events, then to classify it according to the refactoring common quality improvement categories. Specifically, we combine the N-Gram TF-IDF feature selection with binary and multiclass classifiers to build a new model to automate the classification of refactorings based on their quality improvement categories. We challenge our model using a total of 2,867 commit messages extracted from well-engineered open-source Java projects. Our findings show that (1) our model is able to accurately classify SAR commits, outperforming the pattern-based and random classifier approaches, and allowing the discovery of 40 more relevant SAR patterns, and (2) our model reaches an F-measure of up to 90% even with a relatively small training dataset.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Do Design Metrics Capture Developers Perception of Quality? An Empirical Study on Self-Affirmed Refactoring Activities

Background. Refactoring is a critical task in software maintenance and is generally performed to enforce the best design and implementation practices or to cope with design defects. Several studies attempted to detect refactoring activities through mining software repositories allowing to collect, analyze and get actionable data-driven insights about refactoring practices within software projects. Aim. We aim at identifying, among the various quality models presented in the literature, the ones that are more in-line with the developer's vision of quality optimization, when they explicitly mention that they are refactoring to improve them. Method. We extract a large corpus of design-related refactoring activities that are applied and documented by developers during their daily changes from 3,795 curated open source Java projects. In particular, we extract a large-scale corpus of structural metrics and anti-pattern enhancement changes, from which we identify 1,245 quality improvement commits with their corresponding refactoring operations, as perceived by software engineers. Thereafter, we empirically analyze the impact of these refactoring operations on a set of common state-of-the-art design quality metrics. Results. The statistical analysis of the obtained results shows that (i) a few state-of-the-art metrics are more popular than others; and (ii) some metrics are being more emphasized than others. Conclusions. We verify that there are a variety of structural metrics that can represent the internal quality attributes with different degrees of improvement and degradation of software quality. Most of the metrics that are mapped to the main quality attributes do capture developer intentions of quality improvement reported in the commit messages.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access