Long methods that encapsulate multiple responsibilities within a single method are challenging to maintain. Choosing which statements to extract into new methods has been the target of many research tools. Despite steady improvements, these tools often fail to generate refactorings that align with developers' preferences and acceptance criteria. Given that Large Language Models (LLMs) have been trained on large code corpora, if we harness their familiarity with the way developers form functions, we could suggest refactorings that developers are likely to accept. In this paper, we advance the science and practice of refactoring by synergistically combining the insights of LLMs with the power of IDEs to perform Extract Method (EM). Our formative study on 1752 EM scenarios revealed that LLMs are very effective for giving expert suggestions, yet they are unreliable: up to 76.3% of the suggestions are hallucinations. We designed a novel approach that removes hallucinations from the candidates suggested by LLMs, then further enhances and ranks suggestions based on static analysis techniques from program slicing, and finally leverages the IDE to execute refactorings correctly. We implemented this approach in an IntelliJ IDEA plugin called EM-Assist. We empirically evaluated EM-Assist on a diverse corpus that replicates 1752 actual refactorings from open-source projects. We found that EM-Assist outperforms previous state of the art tools: EM-Assist suggests the developer-performed refactoring in 53.4% of cases, improving over the recall rate of 39.4% for previous best-in-class tools. Furthermore, we conducted firehouse surveys with 16 industrial developers and suggested refactorings on their recent commits. 81.3% of them agreed with the recommendations provided by EM-Assist. This shows the usefulness of our approach and ushers us into a new era when LLMs become effective AI assistants for refactoring.

We developed a plugin for IntelliJ IDEA called AntiCopyPaster, which tracks the pasting of code fragments inside the IDE and suggests the appropriate Extract Method refactoring to combat the propagation of duplicates. Unlike the existing approaches, our tool is integrated with the developer’s workflow, and pro-actively recommends refactorings. Since not all code fragments need to be extracted, we develop a classification model to make this decision. When a developer copies and pastes a code fragment, the plugin searches for duplicates in the currently opened file, waits for a short period of time to allow the developer to edit the code, and finally inferences the refactoring decision based on a number of features.

Inspection of code changes is a time-consuming task that constitutes a big part of everyday work of software engineers. Existing IDEs provide little information about the semantics of code changes within the file editor view. Therefore developers have to track changes across multiple files, which is a hard task with large codebases.In this paper, we present REFACTORINSIGHT, a plugin for IntelliJ IDEA that introduces a smart diff for code changes in Java and Kotlin where refactorings are auto-folded and provided with their description, thus allowing users to focus on changes that modify the code behavior like bug fixes and new features. REFACTORINSIGHT supports three usage scenarios: viewing smart diffs with auto-folded refactorings and hints, inspecting refactorings in pull requests and in any specific commit in the project change history, and exploring the refactoring history of methods and classes. The evaluation shows that commit processing time is acceptable: on median it is less than 0.2 seconds, which delay does not disrupt developers’ IDE workflows.Refactorinsight is available at https://github.com/JetBrains-Research/RefactorInsight. The demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/-6L2AKQ66nA.

Despite the availability of refactoring as a feature in popular IDEs, recent studies revealed that developers are reluctant to use them, and still prefer the manual refactoring of their code. At JetBrains, our goal is to fully support refactoring features in IntelliJ-based IDEs and improve their adoption in practice. Therefore, we start by raising the following main questions. How exactly do people refactor code? What refactorings are the most popular? Why do some developers tend not to use convenient IDE refactoring tools?