1. Unification and Refactoring of Clones Giri Panamoottil Krishnan and Nikolaos Tsantalis Department of Computer Science & Software Engineering Clone images created by Rebecca Tiarks et al.

2. Motivation Clones may be harmful – Clones are associated with error-proneness due to inconsistent updates (Juergens et al. @ ICSE’09) – Clones increase significantly the maintenance effort and cost (Lozano et al. @ ICSM’08) – Clones are change-prone (Mondal et al. 2012) Some studies have shown that clones are stable IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 2

3. Motivation cont'd Current refactoring tools perform poorly A study by Tairas & Gray [IST’12] on Type-II clones detected by Deckard in 9 open-source projects revealed: – only 10.6% of them could be refactored by Eclipse – CeDAR [IST’12] was able to refactor 18.7% of them IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 3

4. Limitation #1 Current tools can parameterize only a small subset of differences in clones. – Mostly differences between variable identifiers, literals, simple method calls. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week Rectangle rectangle = new Rectangle( a, b, c, high – low ); Rectangle rectangle = new Rectangle( a, b, c, getHeight() ); Clone #1 Clone #2 4

5. Limitation #2 Current approaches may return non-optimal matching solutions. – They do not explore the entire search space of possible matches. – In case of multiple possible matches, they select the “first” or “best” match. – They face scalability issues due to the problem of combinatorial explosion. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 5

6. if (orientation == VERTICAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double y0 = dataArea.getMinY(); double y1 = dataArea.getMaxY(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(start2d, y0, start2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(end2d, y0, end2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } else if (orientation == HORIZONTAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double x0 = dataArea.getMinX(); double x1 = dataArea.getMaxX(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(x0, start2d, x1, start2d); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(x0, end2d, x1, end2d); g2.draw(line); } if (orientation == VERTICAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double x0 = dataArea.getMinX(); double x1 = dataArea.getMaxX(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(x0, start2d, x1, start2d); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(x0, end2d, x1, end2d); g2.draw(line); } else if (orientation == HORIZONTAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double y0 = dataArea.getMinY(); double y1 = dataArea.getMaxY(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(start2d, y0, start2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(end2d, y0, end2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week Clone #1 Clone #2 NOT APPROVED 6

7. else if (orientation == HORIZONTAL) { } if (orientation == VERTICAL) { } if (orientation == VERTICAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double y0 = dataArea.getMinY(); double y1 = dataArea.getMaxY(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(start2d, y0, start2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(end2d, y0, end2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } else if (orientation == HORIZONTAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double x0 = dataArea.getMinX(); double x1 = dataArea.getMaxX(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(x0, start2d, x1, start2d); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(x0, end2d, x1, end2d); g2.draw(line); } Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double x0 = dataArea.getMinX(); double x1 = dataArea.getMaxX(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(x0, start2d, x1, start2d); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(x0, end2d, x1, end2d); g2.draw(line); } Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double y0 = dataArea.getMinY(); double y1 = dataArea.getMaxY(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(start2d, y0, start2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(end2d, y0, end2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week Clone #1 Clone #2 7

8. if (orientation == HORIZONTAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double y0 = dataArea.getMinY(); double y1 = dataArea.getMaxY(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(start2d, y0, start2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(end2d, y0, end2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } else if (orientation == VERTICAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double x0 = dataArea.getMinX(); double x1 = dataArea.getMaxX(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(x0, start2d, x1, start2d); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(x0, end2d, x1, end2d); g2.draw(line); } if (orientation == VERTICAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double y0 = dataArea.getMinY(); double y1 = dataArea.getMaxY(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(start2d, y0, start2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(end2d, y0, end2d, y1); g2.draw(line); } else if (orientation == HORIZONTAL) { Line2D line = new Line2D.Double(); double x0 = dataArea.getMinX(); double x1 = dataArea.getMaxX(); g2.setPaint(im.getOutlinePaint()); g2.setStroke(im.getOutlineStroke()); if (range.contains(start)) { line.setLine(x0, start2d, x1, start2d); g2.draw(line); } if (range.contains(end)) { line.setLine(x0, end2d, x1, end2d); g2.draw(line); } IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week Clone #1 Clone #2 APPROVED 8

9. Minimizing differences Minimizing the differences during the matching process is critical for refactoring. Why? – Less differences means less parameters for the extracted method (i.e., a more reusable method). – Less differences means also lower probability for precondition violations (i.e., higher refactoring feasibility) Matching process objectives: – Maximize the number of matched statements – Minimize the number of differences between them IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 9

10. Limitation #3 There are no preconditions to determine whether clones can be safely refactored. – The parameterization of differences might change the behavior of the program. – Statements in gaps need to be moved before the cloned code. Changing the order of statements might also affect the behavior of the program. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 10

11. Our goal Improve the state-of-the-art in the Refactoring of Software Clones: Given two code fragments containing clones; Find potential control structures that can be refactored. Find an optimal mapping between the statements of two clones. Make sure that the refactoring of the clones will preserve program behavior. Find the most appropriate refactoring strategy to eliminate the clones. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 11

12. isomorphic CDT pairs Our approach IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 12 Control Structure Matching PDG Mapping differences unmapped statements Precondition Examination

13. Phase 1: Control Structure Matching Intuition: two pieces of code can be merged only if they have an identical control structure. We extract the Control Dependence Trees (CDTs) representing the control structure of the input methods or clones. We find all non-overlapping largest common subtrees within the CDTs. Each subtree match will be treated as a separate refactoring opportunity. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 13

14. CDT Subtree Matching IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week C A B EDGF c a b gfed x y CDT of Fragment #1CDT of Fragment #2 14

15. Phase 2: PDG Mapping We extract the PDG subgraphs corresponding to the matched CDT subtrees. We want to find the common subgraph that satisfies two conditions: – It has the maximum number of matched nodes – The matched nodes have the minimum number of differences. This is an optimization problem that can be solved using an adaptation of a Maximum Common Subgraph algorithm [McGregor, 1982]. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 15

16. MCS Algorithm Builds a search tree in depth-first order, where each node represents a state of the search space. Explores the entire search space. It has an exponential worst case complexity. As the number of possible matching node combinations increases, the width of the search tree grows rapidly (combinatorial explosion). IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 16

17. Divide-and-Conquer We break the original matching problem into smaller sub-problems based on the control dependence structure of the clones. Finally, we combine the sub-solutions to give a global solution to the original matching problem. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 17

18. Bottom-up Divide-and-Conquer IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week C A B EDGF c a b gfed Level 2 CDT subtree of Clone #1CDT subtree of Clone #2 Dd 18

19. Bottom-up Divide-and-Conquer IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week C A B EGF c a b gfe Level 2 CDT subtree of Clone #1CDT subtree of Clone #2 Ee 19

20. Phase 3: Precondition examination Preconditions related to clone differences: – Parameterization of differences should not break existing data dependences in the PDGs. – Reordering of unmapped statements should not break existing data dependences in the PDGs. Preconditions related to method extraction: – The unified code should return one variable at most. – Matched branching (break, continue) statements should be accompanied with the corresponding matched loops in the unified code. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 20

21. Evaluation We compared our approach with a state-of- the-art tool in the refactoring of Type-II clones, CeDAR [Tairas & Gray, IST’12]. 2342 clone groups, detected in 7 open-source projects by Deckard clone detection tool. CeDAR is able to analyze only clone groups in which all clones belong to the same Java file. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 21

22. Clone groups within the same Java file IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 22 Project Clone groups EclipseCeDARJDeodorant  Ant 1.7.0 1201412%2823%5042%+79% Columba 1.4 881315%3034%4147%+37% EMF 2.4.1 14985%149%5436%+286% JMeter 2.3.2 6834%1116%2029%+82% JEdit 4.2 1571510%2013%5736%+185% JFreeChart 1.0.10 2912910%6221%8730%+40% JRuby 1.4.0 812328%2328%3543%+52% Total 954105 11% 188 20% 344 36%+83%

23. Clone groups within different Java files IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 23 Project Clone groups JDeodorant Ant 1.7.0 2114220% Columba 1.4 2756624% EMF 2.4.1 581221% JMeter 2.3.2 2256830% JEdit 4.2 1012121% JFreeChart 1.0.10 33712136% JRuby 1.4.0 1814324% Total 1388373 27%

24. Conclusions Our approach was able to refactor 83% more clone groups than CeDAR. Our approach assessed as refactorable 27% of the clones groups, in which clones are placed in different files. The study revealed that 36% of the clone groups can be refactored directly or in the form of sub-clones. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 24

25. IEEE CSMR-WCRE 2014 Software Evolution Week 25