Cited by 12Software Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware System Performance and Reliability

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Architecture-sensitive heuristics for prioritizing critical code anomalies

Guimarães, Everton, Garcia, Alessandro, Cai, Yuanfang·2015·Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Modularity

Abstract

The progressive insertion of code anomalies in evolving software systems might lead to architecture degradation symptoms. Code anomalies are particularly harmful when they contribute to the architecture degradation. Although several approaches have been proposed aiming to detect anomalies in the source code, most of them fail to assist developers when prioritizing code anomalies critical to the architectural design. Blueprints of the architecture design are artifacts often available in industry software projects. However, such blueprints are rarely explored to support the prioritization of code anomalies in terms of their architecture relevance. This paper proposes and evaluates 2 sets of blueprint-based heuristics for supporting the prioritization of critical code anomalies. The prioritization is based on their potential impact on revealing architectural drift problems. The heuristics allow developers prioritizing critical code anomalies by exploiting architectural information provided in the blueprint. The contributions of this paper include: (i) a set of architecture sensitive heuristics to support developers when prioritizing critical code anomalies; (ii) an evaluation of the proposed heuristics in terms of their prioritization accuracy in 3 systems; and (iii) an empirical analysis on how the blueprints’ information might enhance the prioritization of critical code anomalies, as opposed to existing heuristics strictly based on source code analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2724525.2724567

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.1016/j.infsof.2004.11.005 · DOI
  2. Fowler M., 1999, Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code
  3. 10.1109/CSMR.2012.35 · DOI · Paper page
  4. A., 2012, Proc. of the 3rd RSSE in conjunction with Int’l Conf. on Soft. Engineering, 90
  5. 10.1145/2162049.2162069 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Lanza M., 2006, Object-Oriented Metrics in Practice – Using Software Metrics to Characterize, Evaluate and Improve the Design of Object-Oriented Systems
  7. Marinescu R., 2004, Detection Strategies: Metrics-Based Rules for Detecting Design Flaws. In Proc. of 20th IEEE Int’l Conf. on Soft. Maintenance, 350
  8. 10.1109/CSMR.2009.59 · DOI
  9. Taylor R. N., 2010, Software Architecture - Foundations, Theory, and Practice
  10. 10.1109/ASE.2006.22 · DOI
  11. Macía I., Are Code Anomaly Patterns relevant to Architectural Problems?, IEEE Trans.on Soft. Engineering, 2014
  12. 10.1109/SBES.2014.18 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/32.895984 · DOI
  14. 10.1145/1368088.1368124 · DOI
  15. 10.1145/582419.582437 · DOI
  16. 10.5555/330775 · DOI
  17. 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552 · DOI
  18. 10.1109/EARLYASPECTS.2007.8 · DOI
  19. Object Management Group, 2003, March
  20. Chaudron L., 2010, Proc. of 14th Int’l Conf. on Empirical Assessment in Soft. Engineering, 111
  21. Kiczales G., 1997, Aspect-Oriented Programming. In Proc. of 11th European Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, 220
  22. Martin R.C., 2003, Object Mentor
  23. 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.084 · DOI
  24. Godfrey M., 2000, Proc. of 2nd Symposium on Constructing Soft. Engineering Tools (CoSET), 15
  25. 10.5555/2748144.2748399 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/spe.2200 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/1595696.1595751 · DOI
  28. 10.1145/1117696.1117710 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities

    Wan, Z., Zhang, Y., Xia, X., Jiang, Y., & Lo, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616367 · Cited by 30

    “Conversely, developers are suggested to be actively involved (P3f), by providing explanations or rationale behind implementation decisions that violate the criteria for metrics as specified in monitoring tools.”
    Background

Metadata

Authors
Guimarães, E., Garcia, A., & Cai, Y.
Affiliations
  • Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Drexel University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Modularity
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-03-16
Pages
68-80
OpenAlex
W2084965553
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Modularity (MODULARITY) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
software architecture, architectural blueprints, architectural drift, software evolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review