Rehab El-Hajj
ABSTRACT
Software developers heavily rely on third-party libraries to accomplish their programming tasks. Since many libraries offer similar functionality, it can be difficult and tedious for developers differentiate similar libraries in order to select the most suitable one. In our previous work, we proposed the idea of metric-based library comparisons that allow developers to compare various aspects of libraries within the same domain, empowering them with information to aid with their decision. In this paper we present an IntelliJ plugin, LibComp, that provides this library metric-based comparison technique right within the developer’s IDE. As soon as a developer adds a library dependency that LibComp has information about, LibComp will highlight this dependency to let the developer know that there are alternatives available. Once the user triggers the comparison for that library, they can view various metrics about the library and its alternatives and decide if they want to use one of the alternatives. In the process, LibComp also records the number of times the developer invokes the tool and any completed replacements. Such feedback, if optionally sent to us by the developer, provides us valuable insights into developers’replacement decisions as well as information on how we can improve the tool. A video demonstrating the usage of LibComp can be found at https://youtu.be/YtEEdJan77A
Supplemental Material
- [n. d.]. Maven Repository. https://mvnrepository.com/Google Scholar
- Sven Amann, Sebastian Proksch, and Sarah Nadi. 2016. FeedBaG: an interaction tracker for visual studio. In 24th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, 1-3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brock Angus Campbell and Christoph Treude. 2017. NLP2Code: Code snippet content assist via natural language tasks. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 628-632.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John P. Chin, Virginia A. Diehl, and Kent L. Norman. 1988. Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '88). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1145/57167.57203 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fernando López de la Mora, Rehab El-Hajj, and Sarah Nadi. [n. d.]. Metricbased Library Comparison Scripts. https://github.com/ualberta-smr/ LibraryMetricScriptsGoogle Scholar
- Fernando López de la Mora, Rehab El-Hajj, and Sarah Nadi. [n. d.]. Metric-based Library Comparison Website. http://smr.cs.ualberta.ca/comparelibraries/Google Scholar
- Fernando López de la Mora and Sarah Nadi. 2018. An Empirical Study of Metricbased Comparisons of Software Libraries. In PROMISE.Google Scholar
- Fernando López de la Mora and Sarah Nadi. 2018. Which Library Should I Use?: A Metric-based Comparison of Software Libraries. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE-NIER '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37-40. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3183399.3183418 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2002. Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
- IntelliJ Platform SDK DevGuide. Last accessed: 2019. Program Structure Interface (PSI ), https://www.jetbrains.org/intellij/sdk/docs/basics/architectural_overview/ psi.html.Google Scholar
- Robert Dyer, Hoan Anh Nguyen, Hridesh Rajan, and Tien N Nguyen. 2015. Boa: Ultra-large-scale software repository and source-code mining. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 25, 1 ( 2015 ), 1-34.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rehab El-Hajj and Sarah Nadi. [n. d.]. LibComp plugin. https://github.com/ ualberta-smr/LibCompPluginGoogle Scholar
- ernando López de la Mora, Sarah Nadi, and Rehab El-Hajj. [n. d.]. Library Metric Scripts. https://github.com/ualberta-smr/LibraryMetricScriptsGoogle Scholar
- Rachel L. Franz, Barbara Barbosa Neves, Carrie Demmans Epp, Ronald Baecker, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2019. Why and How Think-Alouds with Older Adults Fail: Recommendations from a Study and Expert Interviews. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06076-3_14 Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Hattori and M. Lanza. 2010. Syde: a tool for collaborative software development. In 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. 235-238. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810295.1810339 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andre Hora and Marco Tulio Valente. 2015. apiwave: Keeping track of api popularity and migration. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 321-323.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Enrique Larios-Vargas, Maurício Aniche, Christoph Treude, Magiel Bruntink, and Georgios Gousios. 2020. Selecting third-party libraries: The practitioners' perspective. In ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE).Google Scholar
- B. Lin, F. Zampetti, G. Bavota, M. Di Penta, and M. Lanza. 2019. Pattern-Based Mining of Opinions in Q A Websites. In 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 548-559.Google Scholar
- Fernando Lopez de la Mora. 2018. Providing Software Library Selection Assistance By Using Metric-Based Comparisons. Master's thesis. University of Alberta.Google Scholar
- Stas Negara, Nicholas Chen, Mohsen Vakilian, Ralph E. Johnson, and Danny Dig. 2013. A Comparative Study of Manual and Automated Refactorings. In ECOOP 2013-Object-Oriented Programming, Giuseppe Castagna (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 552-576.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marco Piccioni, Carlo A Furia, and Bertrand Meyer. 2013. An empirical study of API usability. In ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE, 5-14.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gias Uddin, Olga Baysal, Latifa Guerrouj, and Foutse Khomh. 2019. Understanding how and why developers seek and analyze api-related opinions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( 2019 ).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gias Uddin and Foutse Khomh. 2017. Mining API aspects in api reviews. In Technical Report.Google Scholar
- G. Uddin and F. Khomh. 2017. Opiner: An opinion search and summarization engine for APIs. In 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). 978-983.Google Scholar
- L. Xavier, A. Brito, A. Hora, and M. T. Valente. 2017. Historical and impact analysis of API breaking changes: A large-scale study. In 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER. 2017.7884616 Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- LibComp: an IntelliJ plugin for comparing Java libraries
Recommendations
IntelliJML: a JML plugin for IntelliJ IDEA
FTfJP '21: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like ProgramsJava code can be annotated with formal specifications using the Java Modelling Language (JML). Previous work has provided IDE plugins intended to help write JML, but mostly for the Eclipse IDE. We introduce IntelliJML, a JML plugin for IntelliJ IDEA, ...
Comments