FASE08.ppt

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’0829 March - 6 April, 2008

Moha ©

Context

A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 2

Moha ©

Context


Moha © 4

� 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

What Kind of Defects ?

≠

A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms

Moha © A Domain Analysis to Specify Design Defects and Generate Detection Algorithms 5


� 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.


� 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 ©

Specification

Domain

Analysis

Detection

Processing

Validation


Method DECOR

Moha ©

Specification

Domain

Analysis

Detection

Processing

Validation


Method DECOR

Contributions

� Domain analysis of DDs and domain-specific language

� Explicit process for the specifications

� Validation : first study on both precision and recall

Moha ©

Specification

Domain

Analysis

Detection

Processing

Validation


Method DECOR


Domain AnalysisOn all defects On each defect

1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes

Text-based descriptions

of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)

Travassos : manual detection (1999)

Tools: SmallLint, PMD, CROCOPAT

Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3

Specifications Classes having

design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

Chapter 1

Descriptions of antipatterns

Chapter 1


�The Spaghetti Code is an

antipattern that is characteristic

of procedural thinking in object-

oriented programming. Spaghetti

Code is revealed by classes with

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.



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

Chapter 1


Chapter 1


�The Spaghetti Code is an

antipattern that is characteristic

of procedural thinking in object-

oriented programming. Spaghetti

Code is revealed by classes with

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.

�Identification of Key Concepts



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

Moha ©

Specification

Domain

Analysis

Detection

Processing

Validation


Method DECOR

Moha ©

On all defects On each defect

1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

16

Specifications

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 ©


1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

17

Specifications

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 © 18

Specifications

Meta-model SADDL (Software Architectural Defect Definition Language)



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

Moha ©

Specification

Domain

Analysis

Detection

Processing

Validation


Method DECOR

Moha ©

Specification

Domain

Analysis

Detection

Algorithm

Generation

Validation


Method DECOR


Algorithm GenerationOn all defects On each defect

1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

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



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

Complexity : O((c+op) X n)

c : number of properties

op : number of operators

n : number of classes

SAD Framework

- Meta-model to represent OO programs

- Repository of metrics

- Services to analyse structural relationships

- Services to perform structural and lexical analyses

Moha ©

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 }



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

�Visitor �Template



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

�Visitor �Generated Code

Moha © 29

Experiments

Goal : Validate the generated algorithms in terms of precision and recall

DetectionTime

RecallPrecisionDetected Defects

Existing

Defects

Nb of classes

Defects

2,45s100%88,6%44 (8,6%)39 (7,6%)

513

Blob

0,91s100%51,7%29 (5,6%)15 (2,9%)Functional Decomp.

0,23s100%60,5%76 (14,8%)46 (9,0%)Spaghetti Code

0,08s100%41,1%56 (10,9%)23 (4,5%)Swiss Army Knife


Xerces: 71,217 LOC, 513 classes and 162 interfaces


1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system


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)


Questions

Thanks for your attention !

Contact: [email protected]

http://www-etud.iro.umontreal.ca/~mohanaou

Moha © 33

Algorithm Generation

Box-plot for metrics with ordinal values



1

Specification 2

Domain

Analysis

Vocabulary

Taxonomy

Operational

specifications

Brown et al. (1998)

Demeyer (2002)

Dudney (2003)

Fowler (1999)

Riel (1996)

Webster (1995)

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

Alikacem (2006)

Suspicious

classes


of design defects

Marinescu (2004)

Alikacem (2006)



Detection

4

DECOR Method

Source code

of the system

Processing

3


design defects

Validation

5Source code

of the system

Marinescu (2004)

Munro (2005)

On each system

FASE08.ppt

Technology

Transcript of FASE08.ppt