Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SATT:TailoringCodeMetricThresholdsforDifferentSoftwareArchitectures
1
Maurício Aniche,ChristophTreude,AndyZaidman,Arie vanDeursen,MarcoGerosa@mauricioaniche,@ctreude,@azaidman,@avandeursen,@gerosa_marco
Medical Exams
SCAM2016 2
SCAM2016 3
Sugarlevel150[70,120]
SCAM2016 4
Coupling10<15
Howtofindthisnumber?
SCAM2016 5
Benchmarking
1. order by metric value
SCAM2016 6
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 7
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 8
LOC=100
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 9
LOC=100 LOC=200
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 10
100,000LOC
LOC=100 LOC=200
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 11
100,000LOC
LOC=1000.001%
LOC=200
3. weight aggregation
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 12
100,000LOC
LOC=1000.001%
LOC=2000.002%
3. weight aggregation
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 13
100,000LOC
LOC=1000.001%
LOC=2000.002%+0.001%
3. weight aggregation
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 14
100,000LOC
LOC=1000.001%
LOC=2000.003%
3. weight aggregation
1. order by metric value
2. weight
SCAM2016 15
100,000LOC
3. weight aggregation
0% 100%
0%10%30%70%80%90% 100%
SCAM2016 16
1. order by metric value
2. weight
3. weight aggregation
4. extract thresholds from metric values whereaggregated weight is 70%, 80% and 90%
0%10%30%70%80%90% 100%
SCAM2016 17
1. order by metric value
2. weight
3. weight aggregation
SCAM2016 18
Benchmarkin Controllers
19
Benchmarkin Controllers
SCAM2016 20
That’s not whatwe want
SCAM2016 21
SCAM2016 22
Quantiles
Coup
ling(CBO
)
SATT for the rescueSCAM2016 23
SCAM2016 24
Controllers Other classes
SCAM2016 25
1. order by metric value
SCAM2016 26
1. order by metric value
only controllers
SCAM2016 27
1. order by metric value
2. aggregate the weight
0%10%30%70%80%90% 100%
SCAM2016 28
1. order by metric value
2. aggregate the weight
3. extract thresholds from metric values whereaggregated weight is 70%, 80% and 90%
0%10%30%70%80%90% 100%
SCAM2016 29
Our studySCAM2016 30
projects’ sample
SCAM2016 31
CK metrics
SCAM2016 32
RQ1. What differences in metric values distributions does SATT find for common architectural styles such as MVC?
SCAM2016 33
RQ2. Can the differences in distributions thus found be explained from the architectural constraints imposed on classes fulfilling dedicated architectural roles?
SCAM2016 34
RQ3. What impact do these differences have on the use of thresholds for quality assessments?
SCAM2016 35
Differences!
SCAM2016 36
RQ1. The approach indeed finds architectural roles that present significantly higher (or lower) values for certain metrics when compared to other classes.
SCAM2016 37
We talked to experts
SCAM2016 38
SCAM2016 39
“Controllers are coupled to the framework while Services are coupled to domain objects.”
“Entities contain getters and setters”
RQ2. Experts considered most of the differences in metric values for architectural roles to be coherent. Their key explanation is that architectural roles have specific responsibilities.
SCAM2016 40
SCAM2016 41
SCAM2016 42
SCAM2016 43
SCAM2016 44
RQ3. The state-of-art approach tends to return doubtful results for architectural roles that have metric values distribution significantly different from other classes. Our approach improves it by using the architectural role’s metric values distribution to define thresholds.
SCAM2016 45
SameforAndroid!SCAM2016 46
SCAM2016+ICSME2016=
SCAM2016 47
• Benchmark-basedassessmenttechniquesdonottakethearchitecturalroleofaclassintoconsideration.
• SATTprovidesaspecificthresholdforanarchitecturalrolewhenitsmetricvaluesaresignificantlydifferentfromotherclasses.
• Theapproachseemstoprovidebetterresultsinthesecases.
SCAM2016 48
SATT:TailoringCodeMetricThresholdsforDifferentSoftwareArchitectures
49
Maurício Aniche,ChristophTreude,AndyZaidman,Arie vanDeursen,MarcoGerosa@mauricioaniche,@ctreude,@azaidman,@avandeursen,@gerosa_marco
