Refactoring is a non-trivial maintenance activity. Developers spend time and effort refactoring code to remove structural problems, i.e., code smells. Recent studies indicated that developers often apply composite refactoring (composite, for short), i.e., two or more interrelated refactorings. However, prior studies revealed that only 10% of composite refactorings are considered complete, i.e., those fully removing code smells. Many incomplete refactorings can even replace or introduce smells, requiring additional effort for their removal later in the project. Moreover, existing refactoring recommendations are not well-detailed and do not alert developers about these possible side effects. To address these gaps, we conducted a large-scale study involving more than 250k refactorings from 42 software projects, including both open-source and closed-source projects. Our goal is to investigate how the most common complete composites are combined and their side effects in the practice. Our results reveal that the current recommendation to apply Extract Method(s) with fine-grained refactoring types needs refinements. We found that certain fine-grained refactorings like Change Variable Types and Change Return Types can introduce up to 45% of Brain Methods when combined with Extract Method(s). Moreover, Ex-tract Method(s) and Move Method(s), a common recommendation to remove Feature Envy, may inadvertently introduce about 30% of Lazy Classes and approximately 70% of Data Classes. Despite these potential side effects, existing refactoring catalogs and tools' recommenders do not alert developers about these side effects. Finally, we consolidate our findings into a catalog to provide clear guidance for developers and researchers on effectively applying composite refactorings to fully remove code smells.

Refactoring is a common software maintenance practice. The literature defines standard code modifications for each refactoring type and popular IDEs provide refactoring tools aiming to support these standard modifications. However, previous studies indicated that developers either frequently avoid using these tools or end up modifying and even reversing the code automatically refactored by IDEs. Thus, developers are forced to manually apply refactorings, which is cumbersome and error-prone. This means that refactoring support may not be entirely aligned with practical needs. The improvement of tooling support for refactoring in practice requires understanding in what ways developers tailor refactoring modifications. To address this issue, we conduct an analysis of 1,162 refactorings composed of more than 100k program modifications from 13 software projects. The results reveal that developers recurrently apply patterns of additional modifications along with the standard ones, from here on called patterns of customized refactorings. For instance, we found customized refactorings in 80.77% of the Move Method instances observed in the software projects. We also investigated the features of refactoring tools in popular IDEs and observed that most of the customization patterns are not fully supported by them. Additionally, to understand the relevance of these customizations, we conducted a survey with 40 developers about the most frequent customization patterns we found. Developers confirm the relevance of customization patterns and agree that improvements in IDE's refactoring support are needed. These observations highlight that refactoring guidelines must be updated to reflect typical refactoring customizations. Also, IDE builders can use our results as a basis to enable a more flexible application of automated refactorings. For example, developers should be able to choose which method must handle exceptions when extracting an exception code into a new method.

Recent studies have revealed that developers often apply composite refactorings (or, simply, composites). A composite consists of two or more interrelated refactorings applied together. Previous studies investigated the effect of composites on code smells. A composite is considered “complete” whenever it completely removes one target code smell. They proposed descriptions of complete composites with recommendations to remove certain code smell types, such as Long Methods and Feature Envies. These studies also present different recommendations to remove the same code smell type. However, these studies: (i) are limited to composites only consisting of a small subset of Fowler's refactoring types, (ii) do not detail the scenarios in which each recommendation can be applied to remove the code smell, and (iii) fail in reporting possible side effects of the described composites, such as adversely introducing certain smell types. This paper aims to cover these limitations by performing a systematic analysis of 618 complete composites on removing four common smell types identified in 20 software projects. Our results indicated that: (i) 64% complete composites consisted of refactoring types not covered by existing descriptions of complete composites, and (ii) 36% complete composites formed by Extract Methods can introduce Feature Envies and Intensive Couplings. This information is not documented by existing descriptions, and it can alert developers about alternatives to remove Feature Envy, mainly in methods that are fully envious. These results suggest existing descriptions of complete composites should be either revisited or enhanced to explicitly highlight known side effects. We present a catalog of composites with details about side effects, recommendations to remove or minimize them, and some scenarios in which each recommendation can be applied to remove the code smell. Our catalog can be useful to improve existing tooling support for refactorings, such as IDEs, informing about possible side effects when refactorings are composed.

Program refactoring consists of code changes applied to improve the internal structure of a program and, as a consequence, its comprehensibility. Recent studies indicate that developers often perform composite refactorings, i.e., a set of two or more interrelated single refactorings. Recent studies also recommend certain patterns of composite refactorings to fully remove poor code structures, i.e, code smells, thus further improving the program comprehension. However, other recent studies report that composite refactorings often fail to fully remove code smells. Given their failure to achieve this purpose, these composite refactorings are considered incomplete, i.e, they are not able to entirely remove a smelly structure. Unfortunately, there is no study providing an in-depth analysis of the incompleteness nature of many composites and their possibly partial impact on improving, maybe decreasing, internal quality attributes. This paper identifies the most common forms of incomplete composites, and their effect on quality attributes, such as coupling and cohesion, which are known to have an impact on program comprehension. We analyzed 353 incomplete composite refactorings in 5 software projects, two common code smells (Feature Envy and God Class), and four internal quality attributes. Our results reveal that incomplete composite refactorings with at least one Extract Method are often (71%) applied without Move Methods on smelly classes. We have also found that most incomplete composite refactorings (58%) tended to at least maintain the internal structural quality of smelly classes, thereby not causing more harm to program comprehension. We also discuss the implications of our findings to the research and practice of composite refactoring.

Code refactorings are of pivotal importance in modern code review. Developers may preserve, revisit, add or undo refactorings through changes' revisions. Their goal is to certify that the driving intent of a code change is properly achieved. Developers' intents behind refactorings may vary from pure structural improvement to facilitating feature additions and bug fixes. However, there is little understanding of the refactoring practices performed by developers during the code review process. It is also unclear whether the developers' intents influence the selection, composition, and evolution of refactorings during the review of a code change. Through mining 1,780 reviewed code changes from 6 systems pertaining to two large open-source communities, we report the first in-depth empirical study on software refactoring during code review. We inspected and classified the developers' intents behind each code change into 7 distinct categories. By analyzing data generated during the complete reviewing process, we observe: (i) how refactorings are selected, composed and evolved throughout each code change, and (ii) how developers' intents are related to these decisions. For instance, our analysis shows developers regularly apply non-trivial sequences of refactorings that crosscut multiple code elements (i.e., widely scattered in the program) to support a single feature addition. Moreover, we observed that new developers' intents commonly emerge during the code review process, influencing how developers select and compose their refactorings to achieve the new and adapted goals. Finally, we provide an enriched dataset that allows researchers to investigate the context and motivations behind refactoring operations during the code review process.

Refactoring consists of a transformation applied to improve the program internal structure, for instance, by contributing to remove code smells. Developers often apply multiple interrelated refactorings called composite refactoring. Even though composite refactoring is a common practice, an investigation from different points of view on how composite refactoring manifests in practice is missing. Previous empirical studies also neglect how different kinds of composite refactorings affect the removal, prevalence or introduction of smells. To address these matters, we provide a conceptual framework and two heuristics to respectively characterize and identify composite refactorings within and across commits. Then, we mined the commit history of 48 GitHub software projects. We identified and analyzed 24,911 composite refactorings involving 104,505 single refactorings. Amongst several findings, we observed that most composite refactorings occur in the same commit and have the same refactoring type. We found that several refactorings are semantically related to each other, which occur in different parts of the system but are still related to the same task. Our study is the first to reveal that many smells are introduced in a program due to "incomplete" composite refactorings. Our study is also the first to reveal 111 patterns of composite refactorings that frequently introduce or remove certain smell types. These patterns can be used as guidelines for developers to improve their refactoring practices as well as for designers of recommender systems.

Background: Code refactoring aims to improve code structures via code transformations. A single transformation rarely suffices to fully remove code smells that reveal poor code structures. Most transformations are applied in batches, i.e. sets of interrelated transformations, rather than in isolation. Nevertheless, empirical knowledge on batch application, or batch refactoring, is scarce. Such scarceness helps little to improve current refactoring practices. Aims: We analyzed 57 open and closed software projects. We aimed to understand batch application from two perspectives: characteristics that typically constitute a batch (e.g., the variety of transformation types employed), and the batch effect on smells. Method: We analyzed 19 smell types and 13 transformation types. We identified 4,607 batches, each applied by the same developer on the same code element (method or class); we expected to have batches whose transformations are closely interrelated. We computed (1) the frequency in which five batch characteristic manifest, (2) the probability of each batch characteristics to remove smells, and (3) the frequency in which batches introduce and remove smells. Results: Most batches are quite simple: although most batches are applied on more than one method (90%), they are usually composed of the same transformation type (72%) and only two transformations (57%). Batches applied on a single method are 2.6 times more prone to fully remove smells than batches affecting more than one method. Surprisingly, batches mostly ended up introducing (51%) or not fully removing (38%) smells. Conclusions: The batch simplicity suggests that developers have sub-explored the combinations of transformations within a batch. We summarized some batches that may fully remove smells, so that developers can incorporate them into current refactoring practices.

Context: It is frequently claimed the need for bridging the gap between software engineering research and practice. In this sense, the theory of social representations may be useful to characterize the actual concerns of software developers. It comprises the system of values, behaviors, and practices of communities regarding a particular social object, such as the task of smell identification. Aim: To characterize the social representations of smell identification by software developers. Method: Based on the answers given to a question-naire, we analyzed the associations made by the developers about smell identification, i.e., what immediately comes to their minds when they think about this task. Results: We found that developers strongly associate smell identification with the practice of smell removal and with the incidence of bugs. They also frequently associate the task with the practice of inspection and with the need of having individual skills. Besides, we verified that the current state of the art on smell identification partially address the social representations of the software developers. Conclusion: There is a considerable gap between the research of smell identification and its practice. We propose directions to mitigating this gap.