Code review is a common practice in software development and often conducted before code changes are merged into the code repository. A number of approaches for automatically recommending appropriate reviewers have been proposed to match such code changes to pertinent reviewers. However, such approaches are generic, i.e., they do not focus on specific types of issues during code reviews. In this paper, we propose an approach that focuses on architecture violations, one of the most critical type of issues identified during code review. Specifically, we aim at automating the recommendation of code reviewers, who are potentially qualified to review architecture violations, based on reviews of code changes. To this end, we selected three common similarity detection methods to measure the file path similarity of code commits and the semantic similarity of review comments. We conducted a series of experiments on finding the appropriate reviewers through evaluating and comparing these similarity detection methods in separate and combined ways with the baseline reviewer recommendation approach, RevFinder. The results show that the common similarity detection methods can produce acceptable performance scores and achieve a better performance than RevFinder. The sampling techniques used in recommending code reviewers can impact the performance of reviewer recommendation approaches. We also discuss the potential implications of our findings for both researchers and practitioners.

Context: As a software system evolves, its architecture tends to degrade, and gradually impedes software maintenance and evolution activities and negatively impacts the quality attributes of the system. The main root cause behind architecture erosion phenomenon derives from violation symptoms (i.e., various architecturally-relevant violations, such as violations of architecture pattern). Previous studies focus on detecting violations in software systems using architecture conformance checking approaches. However, code review comments are also rich sources that may contain extensive discussions regarding architecture violations, while there is a limited understanding of violation symptoms from the viewpoint of developers. Objective: In this work, we investigated the characteristics of architecture violation symptoms in code review comments from the developers’ perspective. Methods: We employed a set of keywords Related to violation symptoms to collect 606 (out of 21,583) code review comments from four popular OSS projects in the openStack and qt communities. We manually analyzed the collected 606 review comments to provide the categories and linguistic patterns of violation symptoms, as well as the reactions how developers addressed them. Results: Our findings show that: (1) three main categories of violation symptoms are discussed by developers during the code review process ; (2) The frequently-used terms of expressing violation symptoms are “ inconsistent ” and “ violate ”, and the most common linguistic pattern is Problem Discovery ; (3) Refactoring and removing code are the major measures (90%) to tackle violation symptoms, while a few violation symptoms were ignored by developers. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the investigation of violation symptoms can help researchers better understand the characteristics of architecture erosion and facilitate the development and maintenance activities, and developers should explicitly manage violation symptoms, not only for addressing the existing architecture violations but also preventing future violations.

The phenomenon of architecture erosion can negatively impact the maintenance and evolution of software systems, and manifest in a variety of symptoms during software development. While erosion is often considered rather late, its symptoms can act as early warnings to software developers, if detected in time. In addition to static source code analysis, code reviews can be a source of detecting erosion symptoms and subsequently taking action. In this study, we investigate the erosion symptoms discussed in code reviews, as well as their trends, and the actions taken by developers. Specifically, we conducted an empirical study with the two most active Open Source Software (OSS) projects in the OpenStack community (i.e., Nova and Neutron). We manually checked 21,274 code review comments retrieved by keyword search and random selection, and identified 502 code review comments (from 472 discussion threads) that discuss erosion. Our findings show that (1) the proportion of erosion symptoms is rather low, yet notable in code reviews and the most frequently identified erosion symptoms are architectural violation, duplicate functionality, and cyclic dependency; (2) the declining trend of the identified erosion symptoms in the two OSS projects indicates that the architecture tends to stabilize over time; and (3) most code reviews that identify erosion symptoms have a positive impact on removing erosion symptoms, but a few symptoms still remain and are ignored by developers. The results suggest that (1) code review provides a practical way to reduce erosion symptoms; and (2) analyzing the trend of erosion symptoms can help get an insight about the erosion status of software systems, and subsequently avoid the potential risk of architecture erosion.

Abstract Architecture erosion (AEr) can adversely affect software development and has received significant attention in the last decade. However, there is an absence of a comprehensive understanding of the state of research about the reasons and consequences of AEr, and the countermeasures to address AEr. This work aims at systematically investigating, identifying, and analyzing the reasons, consequences, and ways of detecting and handling AEr. With 73 studies included, the main results are as follows: (1) AEr manifests not only through architectural violations and structural issues but also causing problems in software quality and during software evolution; (2) non‐technical reasons that cause AEr should receive the same attention as technical reasons, and practitioners should raise awareness of the grave consequences of AEr, thereby taking actions to tackle AEr‐related issues; (3) a spectrum of approaches, tools, and measures has been proposed and employed to detect and tackle AEr; and (4) three categories of difficulties and five categories of lessons learned on tackling AEr were identified. The results can provide researchers a comprehensive understanding of AEr and help practitioners handle AEr and improve the sustainability of their architecture. More empirical studies are required to investigate the practices of detecting and addressing AEr in industrial settings.

As software systems evolve, their architecture is meant to adapt accordingly by following the changes in requirements, the environment, and the implementation. However, in practice, the evolving system often deviates from the architecture, causing severe consequences to system maintenance and evolution. This phenomenon of architecture erosion has been studied extensively in research, but not yet been examined from the point of view of developers. In this exploratory study, we look into how developers perceive the notion of architecture erosion, its causes and consequences, as well as tools and practices to identify and control architecture erosion. To this end, we searched through several popular online developer communities for collecting data of discussions related to architecture erosion. Besides, we identified developers involved in these discussions and conducted a survey with 10 participants and held interviews with 4 participants. Our findings show that: (1) developers either focus on the structural manifestation of architecture erosion or on its effect on run-time qualities, maintenance and evolution; (2) alongside technical factors, architecture erosion is caused to a large extent by non-technical factors; (3) despite the lack of dedicated tools for detecting architecture erosion, developers usually identify erosion through a number of symptoms; and (4) there are effective measures that can help to alleviate the impact of architecture erosion.

During the software development life cycle, assumptions are an important type of software development knowledge that can be extracted from textual artifacts. Analyzing assumptions can help to, for example, comprehend software design and further facilitate software maintenance. Manual identification of assumptions by stakeholders is rather time-consuming, especially when analyzing a large dataset of textual artifacts. To address this problem, one promising way is to use automatic techniques for assumption identification. In this study, we conducted an experiment to evaluate the performance of existing machine learning classification algorithms for automatic assumption identification, through a dataset extracted from the Hibernate developer mailing list. The dataset is composed of 400 "Assumption" sentences and 400 "Non-Assumption" sentences. Seven classifiers using different machine learning algorithms were selected and evaluated. The experiment results show that the SVM algorithm achieved the best performance (with a precision of 0.829, a recall of 0.812, and an F1-score of 0.819). Additionally, according to the ROC curves and related AUC values, the SVM-based classifier comparatively performed better than other classifiers for the binary classification of assumptions.