skip to main content
10.1145/1882291.1882353acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
demonstration

Ref-Finder: a refactoring reconstruction tool based on logic query templates

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 November 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Knowing which parts of a system underwent which types of refactoring between two program versions can help programmers better understand code changes. Though there are a number of techniques that automatically find refactorings from two input program versions, these techniques are inadequate in terms of coverage by handling only a subset of refactoring types---mostly simple rename and move refactorings at the level of classes, methods, and fields. This paper presents a Ref-Finder Eclipse plug-in that automatically identifies both atomic and composite refactorings using a template-based refactoring reconstruction approach---it expresses each refactoring type in terms of template logic queries and uses a logic programming engine to infer concrete refactoring instances. Ref-Finder currently supports sixty three types in the Fowler's catalog, showing the most comprehensive coverage among existing techniques.

References

  1. D. Dig, C. Comertoglu, D. Marinov, and R. Johnson. Automated detection of refactorings in evolving components. In ECOOP, pages 404--428, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. Dig, K. Manzoor, R. Johnson, and T. N. Nguyen. Refactoring-aware configuration management for object-oriented programs. In ICSE '07, pages 427--436, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Fowler. Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Kim and D. Notkin. Discovering and representing systematic code changes. In ICSE '09, pages 309--319, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Loh and M. Kim. A program differencing tool to identify systematic structural differences. In ICSE '10 Research Demo, page 4, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. K. Mens, T. Mens, and M. Wermelinger. Maintaining software through intentional source-code views. In SEKE '02, pages 289--296. ACM, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Prete, N. Rachatasumrit, N. Sudan, and M. Kim. Template-based reconstruction of complex refactorings (to appear). In proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, September 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. K. D. Volder. Type Oriented Logic Meta Programming. PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Z. Xing and E. Stroulia. Refactoring detection based on umldiff change-facts queries. In WCRE '06, pages 263--274, Washington, DC, USA, 2006. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. L. Zou and M. Godfrey. Using origin analysis to detect merging and splitting of source code entities. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 31(2):166--181, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Ref-Finder: a refactoring reconstruction tool based on logic query templates

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      FSE '10: Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering
      November 2010
      302 pages
      ISBN:9781605587912
      DOI:10.1145/1882291

      Copyright © 2010 Copyright is held by the author/owner(s)

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 November 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • demonstration

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate17of128submissions,13%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader