Refactoring is a widely adopted practice for improving code comprehension and for removing severe structural problems in a project. When refactorings affect the system architecture, they are called architectural refactorings. Unfortunately, developers usually do not know when and how they should apply refactorings to remove architectural problems. Nevertheless, they might be more susceptible to applying architectural refactoring if they rely on code smells and code refactoring -- two concepts that they usually deal with through their routine programming activities. To investigate if smells can serve as indicators of architectural refactoring opportunities, we conducted a retrospective study over the commit history of 50 software projects. We analyzed 52,667 refactored elements to investigate if they had architectural problems that could have been indicated by automatically-detected smells. We considered purely structural refactorings to identify elements that were likely to have architectural problems. We found that the proportion of refactored elements without smells is much lower than those refactored with smells. By analyzing the latter, we concluded that smells can be used as indicators of architectural refactoring opportunities when the affected source code is deteriorated, i.e., the code hosting two or more smells. For example, when God Class or Complex Class appear together with other smells, they are indicators of architectural refactoring opportunities. In general, smells that often co-occurred with other smells (67.53%) are indicators of architectural refactoring opportunities in most cases (88.53% of refactored elements). Our study also enables us to derive a catalog with patterns of smells that indicate refactoring opportunities to remove specific types of architectural problems. These patterns can guide developers and make them more susceptible to apply architectural refactorings.

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.

Code smells in a program represent indications of structural quality problems, which can be addressed by software refactoring. However, refactoring intends to achieve different goals in practice, and its application may not reduce smelly structures. Developers may neglect or end up creating new code smells through refactoring. Unfortunately, little has been reported about the beneficial and harmful effects of refactoring on code smells. This paper reports a longitudinal study intended to address this gap. We analyze how often commonly-used refactoring types affect the density of 13 types of code smells along the version histories of 23 projects. Our findings are based on the analysis of 16,566 refactorings distributed in 10 different types. Even though 79.4% of the refactorings touched smelly elements, 57% did not reduce their occurrences. Surprisingly, only 9.7% of refactorings removed smells, while 33.3% induced the introduction of new ones. More than 95% of such refactoring-induced smells were not removed in successive commits, which suggest refactorings tend to more frequently introduce long-living smells instead of eliminating existing ones. We also characterized and quantified typical refactoring-smell patterns, and observed that harmful patterns are frequent, including: (i) approximately 30% of the Move Method and Pull Up Method refactorings induced the emergence of God Class, and (ii) the Extract Superclass refactoring creates the smell Speculative Generality in 68% of the cases.