FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2020144937> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2020144937 abstract "Source code analysis has been and still is extensively researched topic with various applications to the modern software industry. In this paper we share our experience in applying various source code analysis techniques for assessing the quality of and detecting potential defects in a large mission-critical software system. The case study is about the maintenance of a software system of a Bulgarian government agency. The system has been developed by a third-party software vendor over a period of four years. The development produced over 4 million LOC using more than 20 technologies. Musala Soft won a tender for maintaining this system in 2008. Although the system was operational, there were various issues that were known to its users. So, a decision was made to assess the system's quality with various source code analysis tools. The expectation was that the findings will reveal some of the problems' cause, allowing us to correct the issues and thus improve the quality and focus on functional enhancements. Musala Soft had already established a special unit - Applied Research and Development Center - dealing with research and advancements in the area of software system analysis. Thus, a natural next step was for this unit to use the know-how and in-house developed tools to do the assessment. The team used various techniques that had been subject to intense research, more precisely: software metrics, code clone detection, defect and “code smells” detection through flow-sensitive and points-to analysis, software visualization and graph drawing. In addition to the open-source and free commercial tools, the team used internally developed ones that complement or improve what was available. The internally developed Smart Source Analyzer platform that was used is focused on several analysis areas: source code modeling, allowing easy navigation through the code elements and relations for different programming languages; quality audit through software metrics by aggregating various metrics into a more meaningful quality characteristic (e.g. “maintainability”); source code pattern recognition - to detect various security issues and “code smells”. The produced results presented information about both the structure of the system and its quality. As the analysis was executed in the beginning of the maintenance tenure, it was vital for the team members to quickly grasp the architecture and the business logic. On the other hand, it was important to review the detected quality problems as this guided the team to quick solutions for the existing issues and also highlighted areas that would impede future improvements. The tool IPlasma and its System Complexity View (Fig. 1) revealed where the business logic is concentrated, which are the most important and which are the most complex elements of the system. The analysis with our internal metrics framework (Fig. 2) pointed out places that need refactoring because the code is hard to modify on request or testing is practically impossible. The code clone detection tools showed places where copy and paste programming has been applied. PMD, Find Bugs and Klockwork Solo tools were used to detect various “code smells” (Fig. 3). There were a number of occurrences that were indeed bugs in the system. Although these results were productive for the successful execution of the project, there were some challenges that should be addressed in the future through more extensive research. The two aspects we consider the most important are usability and integration. As most of the tools require very deep understanding of the underlying analysis, the whole process requires tight cooperation between the analysis team and the maintenance team. For example, most of the metrics tools available provide specific values for a given metric without any indication what the value means and what is the threshold. Our internal metrics framework aggregates the metrics into meaningful quality characteristics, which solves the issue partially. However, the user still often wonders about the justification behind the meaning of the given quality characteristic. There is a need for an explanation system - one, which could point out the source code elements and explain why they are considered good or bad. The integration aspect is considered important because such analysis should be performed continuously. In our experience, the analysis is usually performed subsequent to an important event - in this case: beginning of maintenance tenure. Some quality assurance practices should be developed and then adopted by the development teams so that the implementation quality is checked continuously. This should cover various activities and instruments, such as the integrated development environment, the code review process, automated builds, etc. In conclusion, we think that implementation quality audit and management is a vital activity that should be integrated into the software development process and the tools that support it should be usable by the development team members without much knowledge of the underlying analysis. In this paper we presented a case study that showed the benefits of such a process." @default.
• W2020144937 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2020144937 creator A5035949180 @default.
• W2020144937 creator A5052780558 @default.
• W2020144937 creator A5073234266 @default.
• W2020144937 creator A5086031445 @default.
• W2020144937 date "2011-04-01" @default.
• W2020144937 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2020144937 title "Applying source code analysis techniques: A case study for a large mission-critical software system" @default.
• W2020144937 doi "https://doi.org/10.1109/eurocon.2011.5929241" @default.
• W2020144937 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2020144937 type Work @default.
• W2020144937 sameAs 2020144937 @default.
• W2020144937 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2020144937 countsByYear W20201449372015 @default.
• W2020144937 countsByYear W20201449372021 @default.
• W2020144937 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2020144937 hasAuthorship W2020144937A5035949180 @default.
• W2020144937 hasAuthorship W2020144937A5052780558 @default.
• W2020144937 hasAuthorship W2020144937A5073234266 @default.
• W2020144937 hasAuthorship W2020144937A5086031445 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C115903868 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C117447612 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C137287247 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C149091818 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C150292731 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C171981572 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C186846655 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C201995342 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C2777904410 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C43126263 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C4379982 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConcept C529173508 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C111919701 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C115903868 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C117447612 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C127413603 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C137287247 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C149091818 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C150292731 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C171981572 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C186846655 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C201995342 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C2777904410 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C41008148 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C43126263 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C4379982 @default.
• W2020144937 hasConceptScore W2020144937C529173508 @default.
• W2020144937 hasLocation W20201449371 @default.
• W2020144937 hasOpenAccess W2020144937 @default.
• W2020144937 hasPrimaryLocation W20201449371 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W12298329 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2120981580 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2148711489 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2575525335 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2598702176 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2736585607 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2763622888 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2765420034 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2777916999 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2789660410 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2793876926 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2921544481 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2963413983 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W3039073784 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W3142773600 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W3163657358 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W3190588704 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W3214383379 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W169777873 @default.
• W2020144937 hasRelatedWork W2566907004 @default.
• W2020144937 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2020144937 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2020144937 magId "2020144937" @default.
• W2020144937 workType "article" @default.