ArticlePloS one2022
Historical perspective of code clone refactorings in evolving software.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cloning in software is generally perceived as a threat to its maintenance and that is why it needs to be managed properly. Understanding clones from a historical perspective is essential for effective clone management. Analysis of code refactorings performed on clones in previous releases will help developers in taking decisions about clone refactoring in future releases. In this paper we perform a longitudinal study on the evolution of clone refactorings in various versions of five software systems. To perform a systematic study on clone refactoring evolution, we define clone evolution patterns for studying refactorings in a formal notation. Our results show that only a small proportion of code clones are refactored between the versions and most of the refactorings are inconsistent within clone classes. Moreover, clone refactorings may cause clone removal. Analysis of the source code of refactored clones reveals similar reasons of inconsistent refactorings and clone removal for five Java systems. This analysis will help in devising appropriate strategies for managing clone refactorings in software and hence provide foundation for devising better clone management tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.