Paper Info
Title
Re-visiting a Test Taxonomy with Refactoring and Defect-fix Data.
Abstract
In a previous empirical study by Bavota et al., multiple releases of three open-source systems reported the extent to which refactorings induced defect-fixes. In a much earlier study, van Deursen and Moonen (vDu0026M) provided a test taxonomy in which Fowleru0027s seventy-two refactorings were categorized according to the post refactoring test burden of each (i.e., the changes required to unit tests after each refactoring had been undertaken). A refactoring was categorized as u0027Type Bu0027 if it required no change to the original tests and u0027Type Eu0027 if significant changes were necessary. In this paper, we investigate nine refactorings spread across vDu0026Mu0027s taxonomy and the corresponding defect-fix data provided by Bavota et al., to explore the relationship between defect-fixes due to refactoring and vDu0026Mu0027s taxonomy. Results showed that, in contrast to our intuition, the most defect-fix prone refactorings were of Types C and D and not, as we thought, of Type E. The u0027Extract methodu0027 refactoring stood out as particularly u0027defect-fixu0027 inducing, suggesting that while it may solve one problem (i.e., in decomposing an excessively long method), it may well introduce other problems and required defect-fixes as a by-product.
Year
Venue
Field
2018
SEAA
Software engineering,Systems engineering,Computer science,Unit testing,Software bug,Intuition,Code refactoring,Open source software,Empirical research,Market research
DocType
Citations 
PageRank 
Conference
0
0.34
References 
Authors
0
5
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Steve Counsell11732117.90
Stephen Swift2203.83
Roberto Tonelli314519.35
Michele Marchesi4807120.28
Michael Felderer553878.87