research-article

An empirical examination of the relationship between code smells and merge conflicts

Authors:

Iftekhar Ahmed,

Caius Brindescu,

Umme Ayda Mannan,

Anita SarmaAuthors Info & Claims

ESEM '17: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

Pages 58 - 67

https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.12

Published: 09 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Background: Merge conflicts are a common occurrence in software development. Researchers have shown the negative impact of conflicts on the resulting code quality and the development workflow. Thus far, no one has investigated the effect of bad design (code smells) on merge conflicts. Aims: We posit that entities that exhibit certain types of code smells are more likely to be involved in a merge conflict. We also postulate that code elements that are both "smelly" and involved in a merge conflict are associated with other undesirable effects (more likely to be buggy). Method: We mined 143 repositories from GitHub and recreated 6,979 merge conflicts to obtain metrics about code changes and conflicts. We categorized conflicts into semantic or non-semantic, based on whether changes affected the Abstract Syntax Tree. For each conflicting change, we calculate the number of code smells and the number of future bug-fixes associated with the affected lines of code. Results: We found that entities that are smelly are three times more likely to be involved in merge conflicts. Method-level code smells (Blob Operation and Internal Duplication) are highly correlated with semantic conflicts. We also found that code that is smelly and experiences merge conflicts is more likely to be buggy. Conclusion: Bad code design not only impacts maintainability, it also impacts the day to day operations of a project, such as merging contributions, and negatively impacts the quality of the resulting code. Our findings indicate that research is needed to identify better ways to support merge conflict resolution to minimize its effect on code quality.

References

[1]

Ahmed, I., Mannan, U. A., Gopinath, R., & Jensen, C. An empirical study of design degradation: How software projects get worse over time. Empirical Software Engineering & Measurement (ESEM), 2015, pp.1--10.

[2]

Apache Software Foundation. Apache maven project. http://maven.apache.org

[3]

Apel, S., Leßenich, O., & Lengauer, C. Structured merge with auto-tuning: balancing precision and performance. International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2012, (pp. 120--129).

Digital Library

[4]

Apel, S., Liebig, J., Brandl, B., Lengauer, C., & Kästner, C. Semistructured merge: rethinking merge in revision control systems. 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering, 2011, (pp. 190--200).

Digital Library

[5]

Bakota, T., Ferenc, R., & Gyimothy, T. Clone smells in software evolution. IEEE International Conference on Software Maintentance, 2007, (pp. 24--33).

[6]

Biehl, J. T., Czerwinski, M., Smith, G., & Robertson, G. G. FASTDash: a visual dashboard for fostering awareness in software teams. Human factors in computing systems, 2007, (pp. 1313--1322).

Digital Library

[7]

Bird, C., Bachmann, A., Aune, E., Duffy, J., Bernstein, A., Filkov, V., & Devanbu, P. Fair and balanced?: bias in bug-fix datasets. European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering, 2009, (pp. 121--130).

Digital Library

[8]

Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., & Lipow, M. (Quantitative evaluation of software qualityinternational conference on Software engineering, 1976 (pp. 592--605).

Digital Library

[9]

Brun, Y., Holmes, R., Ernst, M. D., & Notkin, D. Proactive detection of collaboration conflicts. European conference on Foundations of software engineering, 2011, (pp. 168--178).

Digital Library

[10]

Buckley, J., Mens, T., Zenger, M., Rashid, A., & Kniesel, G. (2005). Towards a taxonomy of software change. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 17(5), 309--332.

Digital Library

[11]

C. K. Roy and J. R. Cordy, "A survey on software clone detection research," Queen's University, Kingston, Canada, Tech. Rep. 2007-541, 2007.

[12]

Canfora, G., Cerulo, L., & Di Penta, M. (2007, May). Identifying Changed Source Code Lines from Version Repositories. In MSR (Vol. 7, p. 14).

Digital Library

[13]

Cataldo, M., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2013). Coordination breakdowns and their impact on development productivity and software failures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(3), 343--360.

Digital Library

[14]

Cleidson R. B. de Souza, David Redmiles, and Paul Dourish. 2003. "Breaking the Code", Moving Between Private and Public Work in Collaborative Software Development. ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '03) pp. 105--114.

Digital Library

[15]

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

[16]

Companion Website: https://goo.gl/ORpLkU

[17]

Costa, C., Figueiredo, J. J., Ghiotto, G., & Murta, L. (2014). Characterizing the Problem of Developers' Assignment for Merging Branches. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 24(10), 1489--1508.

[18]

Cunningham, W. (1993). The WyCash portfolio management system. ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Messenger, 4(2), 29--30.

Digital Library

[19]

Da Silva, I. A., Chen, P. H., Van der Westhuizen, C., Ripley, R. M., & Van Der Hoek, A. Lighthouse: coordination through emerging design. 2006 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange (pp. 11--15).

Digital Library

[20]

De Souza, L. B. L., & de Almeida Maia, M. Do software categories impact coupling metrics?. In Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2013, (pp. 217--220).

Digital Library

[21]

Deligiannis, I., Shepperd, M., Roumeliotis, M., & Stamelos, I. (2003). An empirical investigation of an object-oriented design heuristic for maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software, 65(2), 127--139.

Digital Library

[22]

Deligiannis, I., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., Roumeliotis, M., & Shepperd, M. (2004). A controlled experiment investigation of an object-oriented design heuristic for maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software, 72(2), 129--143.

[23]

Dewan, P., & Hegde, R. (2007). Semi-synchronous conflict detection and resolution in asynchronous software development. ECSCW 2007, 159--178.

[24]

Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 107--114). ACM.

Digital Library

[25]

El Emam, K., Benlarbi, S., Goel, N., & Rai, S. N. (2001). The confounding effect of class size on the validity of object-oriented metrics. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(7), 630--650.

Digital Library

[26]

Falleri, J. R., Morandat, F., Blanc, X., Martinez, M., & Monperrus, M. (2014). Fine-grained and accurate source code differencing. 29th international conference on Automated software engineering (pp. 313--324).

Digital Library

[27]

Fontana, F. A., Mäntylä, M. V., Zanoni, M., & Marino, A. (2016). Comparing and experimenting machine learning techniques for code smell detection. Empirical Software Engineering, 21(3), 1143--1191.

Digital Library

[28]

Fontana, F. A., Mariani, E., Mornioli, A., Sormani, R., & Tonello, A. (2011, March). An experience report on using code smells detection tools. 2011 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshop (ICSTW), pp. 450--457.

Digital Library

[29]

Fowler, M., & Beck, K. (1999). Refactoring: improving the design of existing code. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Digital Library

[30]

Godfrey, M. W., & Zou, L. (2005). Using origin analysis to detect merging and splitting of source code entities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(2), 166--181.

Digital Library

[31]

Gorton, I., & Liu, A. (2002). Software component quality assessment in practice: successes and practical impediments. 24th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 555--558). ACM.

Digital Library

[32]

Guimarães, M. L., & Silva, A. R. (2012) Improving early detection of software merge conflicts. 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), (pp. 342--352).

Digital Library

[33]

Hall, T., Zhang, M., Bowes, D., & Sun, Y. (2014). Some code smells have a significant but small effect on faults. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 23(4), 33.

Digital Library

[34]

Hattori, L., & Lanza, M. (2010, May). Syde: A tool for collaborative software development. 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 2 (pp. 235--238).

Digital Library

[35]

Hensher, D. A., & Stopher, P. R. (Eds.). (1979). Behavioural travel modelling. London: Croom Helm.

[36]

InFusion, http://www.intooitus.com/inFusion.html. (accessed at January 2014)

[37]

Izurieta, C., & Bieman, J. M. (2007,). How software designs decay: A pilot study of pattern evolution. Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. (pp. 449--451).

Digital Library

[38]

Juergens, E., Deissenboeck, F., Hummel, B., & Wagner, S. (2009). Do code clones matter?. International Conference on Software Engineering. (pp. 485--495).

Digital Library

[39]

Kagdi, H., Gethers, M., Poshyvanyk, D., & Collard, M. L. (2010, October). Blending conceptual and evolutionary couplings to support change impact analysis in source code. In Reverse Engineering (WCRE), 2010 17th Working Conference on (pp. 119--128). IEEE.

Digital Library

[40]

Kasi, B. K., & Sarma, A. Cassandra: Proactive conflict minimization through optimized task scheduling. 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 732--741). IEEE Press.

Digital Library

[41]

Khomh, F., Di Penta, M., Guéhéneuc, Y. G., & Antoniol, G. (2012). An exploratory study of the impact of antipatterns on class change-and fault-proneness. Empirical Software Engineering, 17(3), 243--275.

Digital Library

[42]

Kim, S., Zimmermann, T., Pan, K., & James Jr, E. (2006,). Automatic identification of bug-introducing changes. International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE'06. (pp. 81--90).

Digital Library

[43]

Koschke, R. (2007). Survey of research on software clones. In Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.

[44]

Kruchten, P., Nord, R. L., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice. Ieee software, 29(6), 18--21.

Digital Library

[45]

Lanza, M., & Marinescu, R. (2007). Object-oriented metrics in practice: using software metrics to characterize, evaluate, and improve the design of object-oriented systems. Springer Science & Business Media.

Digital Library

[46]

Li, W., & Shatnawi, R. (2007). An empirical study of the bad smells and class error probability in the post-release object-oriented system evolution. Journal of systems and software, 80(7), 1120--1128.

Digital Library

[47]

Lippe, E., & Van Oosterom, N. (1992, November). Operation-based merging. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes (Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 78--87). ACM.

Digital Library

[48]

Marinescu, R. (2001). Detecting design flaws via metrics in object-oriented systems. International Conference and Exhibition on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, (pp. 173--182).

Digital Library

[49]

Marinescu, R. (2004, September). Detection strategies: Metrics-based rules for detecting design flaws. In Software Maintenance, 2004. Proceedings. 20th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 350--359). IEEE.

Digital Library

[50]

Martin, R. C. (2003). Agile software development: principles, patterns, and practices. Prentice Hall PTR.

Digital Library

[51]

Mens, T. (2002). A state-of-the-art survey on software merging. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 28(5), 449--462.

Digital Library

[52]

Moha, N., Rezgui, J., Guéhéneuc, Y. G., Valtchev, P., & El Boussaidi, G. (2008). Using FCA to suggest refactorings to correct design defects. In Concept Lattices and Their Applications (pp. 269--275). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Digital Library

[53]

Nieminen, A. (2012,). Real-time collaborative resolving of merge conflicts. International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom), (pp. 540--543).

Digital Library

[54]

Olbrich, S., Cruzes, D. S., Basili, V., & Zazworka, N. (2009). The evolution and impact of code smells: A case study of two open source systems. 2009 3rd international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 390--400). IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[55]

Palomba, F., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2013). Detecting bad smells in source code using change history information. Automated software engineering (ASE), (pp. 268--278).

Digital Library

[56]

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., ... & Vanderplas, J. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(Oct), 2825--2830.

Digital Library

[57]

Sarma, A., & Van Der Hoek, A. (2006, October). Towards awareness in the large. In Global Software Engineering, 2006. ICGSE'06. International Conference on (pp. 127--131).

Digital Library

[58]

Sarma, A., Noroozi, Z., & Van Der Hoek, A. (2003). Palantir: raising awareness among configuration management workspaces. International Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 444--454).

Digital Library

[59]

Schumacher, J., Zazworka, N., Shull, F., Seaman, C., & Shaw, M. (2010). Building empirical support for automated code smell detection. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (p. 8).

Digital Library

[60]

Servant, F., Jones, J. A., & Van Der Hoek, A. (2010). CASI: preventing indirect conflicts through a live visualization. ICSE Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (pp. 39--46).

Digital Library

[61]

Tian, Y., Lawall, J., & Lo, D. (2012, June). Identifying linux bug fixing patches. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 386--396). IEEE Press.

Digital Library

[62]

Tiobe, http://tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

[63]

Understand™ Static Code Analysis Tool. (2017).

[64]

Weyuker, E. J., Ostrand, T. J., & Bell, R. M. (2008). Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Using the number of developers to enhance defect prediction models. Empirical Software Engineering, 13(5), 539--559.

Digital Library

[65]

Wloka, J., Ryder, B., Tip, F., & Ren, X. (2009, May). Safe-commit analysis to facilitate team software development. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 507--517). IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[66]

Yamashita, A. F., & Moonen, L. Do developers care about code smells? An exploratory survey. WCRE, 2013 (Vol. 13, pp. 242--251).

[67]

Zazworka, N., Shaw, M. A., Shull, F., & Seaman, C. Investigating the impact of design debt on software quality. 2nd Workshop on Managing Techinical Debt, 2011

Digital Library

[68]

Zimmermann, T., Kim, S., Zeller, A., & Whitehead Jr, E. J. Mining version archives for co-changed lines. 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 72--75).

Digital Library

Cited By

Aldndni WServant FMeng NBaysal OLinares-Vasquez MMoran KSteinmacher I(2024)Understanding the Impact of Branch Edit Features for the Automatic Prediction of Merge Conflict ResolutionsProceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension10.1145/3643916.3644433(149-160)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643916.3644433
Shen BMeng N(2024)ConflictBenchJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112084214:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2024.112084
Melo de Araújo MCosta CFontão A(2023)Analysis of the Technical Debt of Software Projects Based on Merge Code CommentsProceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse10.1145/3622748.3622751(21-30)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622748.3622751
Show More Cited By

An empirical examination of the relationship between code smells and merge conflicts
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Software management

Recommendations

Are architectural smells independent from code smells? An empirical study
Highlights
- Case study analyzing the correlations among code smells, groups of code smells and architectural smells.
Abstract
Background. Architectural smells and code smells are symptoms of bad code or design that can cause different quality problems, such as faults, technical debt, or difficulties with maintenance and evolution. Some studies ...
Code smells detection via modern code review: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities
Abstract
Code review plays an important role in software quality control. A typical review process involves a careful check of a piece of code in an attempt to detect and locate defects and other quality issues/violations. One type of issue that may impact ...
An Empirical Study on the Occurrences of Code Smells in Open Source and Industrial Projects
ESEM '22: Proceedings of the 16th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

Background: Reusing source code containing code smells can induce significant amount of maintenance time and cost. A list of code smells has been identified in the literature and developers are encouraged to avoid the smells from the very beginning ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ESEM '17: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

November 2017

481 pages

ISBN:9781509040391

General Chair:
Ayse Bener
Ryerson University, Canada
,
Program Chairs:
Burak Turhan
Brunel University, UK
,
Stefan Biffl
Technische Universität Wien, Austria

Sponsors

SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
IEEE-CS\DATC: IEEE Computer Society

Publisher

IEEE Press

Publication History

Published: 09 November 2017

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ESEM '17

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT
IEEE-CS\DATC

ESEM '17: ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

November 9 - 10, 2017

Ontario, Markham, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 130 of 594 submissions, 22%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

16
Total Citations
View Citations
146
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Aldndni WServant FMeng NBaysal OLinares-Vasquez MMoran KSteinmacher I(2024)Understanding the Impact of Branch Edit Features for the Automatic Prediction of Merge Conflict ResolutionsProceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension10.1145/3643916.3644433(149-160)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643916.3644433
Shen BMeng N(2024)ConflictBenchJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112084214:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2024.112084
Melo de Araújo MCosta CFontão A(2023)Analysis of the Technical Debt of Software Projects Based on Merge Code CommentsProceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse10.1145/3622748.3622751(21-30)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622748.3622751
Oliveira JMongiovi MSouto S(2023)An empirical study of the relationship between refactorings and merge conflicts in Javascript codeProceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3613372.3613402(89-98)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613372.3613402
Shen BGulzar MHe FMeng N(2023)A Characterization Study of Merge Conflicts in Java ProjectsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/354694432:2(1-28)Online publication date: 31-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3546944
Aldndni WMeng NServant F(2023)Automatic prediction of developers’ resolutions for software merge conflictsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111836206:COnline publication date: 1-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111836
Verma RKumar KVerma H(2023)Code smell prioritization in object‐oriented software systemsJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.253635:12Online publication date: 29-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.2536
Cunha MAccioly PBorba P(2022)The Private Life of Merge ConflictsProceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3555228.3555240(353-362)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555228.3555240
Towqir SShen BGulzar MMeng N(2022)Detecting Build Conflicts in Software Merge for Java Programs via Static AnalysisProceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/3551349.3556950(1-13)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3551349.3556950
Maddila CNagappan NBird CGousios Gvan Deursen A(2022)ConE: A Concurrent Edit Detection Tool for Large-scale Software DevelopmentACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/347801931:2(1-26)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478019
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents