Lisa Hua

dblp:167/0210 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software maintenance and evolution · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
refactoring
0.212015
Does Automated Refactoring Obviate Systematic Editing? · ICSE (1) 2015
Software maintenance and evolution
systematic editing
0.212015
Does Automated Refactoring Obviate Systematic Editing? · ICSE (1) 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

clone removal · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Does Automated Refactoring Obviate Systematic Editing?
abstract
When developers add features and fix bugs, they often make systematic edits-similar edits to multiple locations. Systematic edits may indicate that developers should instead refactor to eliminate redundancy. This paper explores this question by designing and implementing a fully automated refactoring tool called RASE, which performs clone removal. RASE (1) extracts common code guided by a systematic edit; (2) creates new types and methods as needed; (3) parameterizes differences in types, methods, variables, and expressions; and (4) inserts return objects and exit labels based on control and data flow. To our knowledge, this functionality makes RASE the most advanced refactoring tool for automated clone removal. We evaluate RASE with real-world systematic edits and compare to method based clone removal. RASE successfully performs clone removal in 30 of 56 method pairs (n=2) and 20 of 30 method groups (n≥3) with systematic edits. We find that scoping refactoring based on systematic edits (58%), rather than the entire method (33%), increases the applicability of automated clone removal. Automated refactoring is not feasible in the other 42% cases, which indicates that automated refactoring does not obviate the need for systematic editing.
Na Meng 0001, Lisa Hua, Miryung Kim, Kathryn S. McKinley
ICSE (1)2