Background: Code cloning - copying and reusing pieces of source code - is a common phenomenon in software development in practice. There have been several empirical studies on the effects of cloning, but there are contradictory results regarding the connection of cloning and faults. Objective: Our aim is to clarify the relationship between code clones and faults. In particular, we focus on inconsistent (or type-3) clones in this work. Method: We conducted a case study with TWT GmbH where we detected the code clones in three Java systems, set them into relation to information from issue tracking and version control and interviewed three key developers. Results: Of the type-3 clones, 17 contain faults. Developers modified most of the type-3 clones simultaneously and thereby fixed half of the faults in type-3 clones consistently. Type-2 clones with faults all evolved to fixed type-3 clones. Clone length is only weakly correlated with faultiness. Conclusion: There are indications that the developers in two cases have been aware of clones. It might be a reason for the weak relationship between type-3 clones and faults. Hence, it seems important to keep developers aware of clones, potentially with new tool support. Future studies need to investigate if the rate of faults in type-3 clones justifies using them as cues in defect detection.
Mondal, Roy and Schneider @cite_25 compared the fault proneness of different types of clones in a set of open-source projects. They found that type-3 clones are the most fault-prone.
@cite_25
2171368158 1973650376 2067377566 2547865220
Code clones are defined to be the exactly or nearly similar code fragments in a software system's code-base. The existing clone related studies reveal that code clones are likely to introduce bugs and inconsistencies in the code-base. However, although there are different types of clones, it is still unknown which types of clones have a higher likeliness of introducing bugs to the software systems and so, should be considered more important for managing with techniques such as refactoring or tracking. With this focus, we performed a study that compared the bug-proneness of the major clone-types: Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3. According to our experimental results on thousands of revisions of seven diverse subject systems, Type 3 clones exhibit the highest bug-proneness among the three clone-types. The bug-proneness of Type 1 clones is the lowest. Also, Type 3 clones have the highest likeliness of being co-changed consistently while experiencing bug-fixing changes. Moreover, the Type 3 clones that experience bug-fixes have a higher possibility of evolving following a Similarity Preserving Change Pattern (SPCP) compared to the bug-fix clones of the other two clone-types. From the experimental results it is clear that Type 3 clones should be given a higher priority than the other two clone-types when making clone management decisions. We believe that our study provides useful implications for ranking clones for refactoring and tracking. Clones are generally considered bad programming practice in software engineering folklore. They are identified as a bad smell ( 1999) and a major contributor to project maintenance difficulties. Clones inherently cause code bloat, thus increasing project size and maintenance costs. In this work, we try to validate the conventional wisdom empirically to see whether cloning makes code more defect prone. This paper analyses the relationship between cloning and defect proneness. For the four medium to large open source projects that we studied, we find that, first, the great majority of bugs are not significantly associated with clones. Second, we find that clones may be less defect prone than non-cloned code. Third, we find little evidence that clones with more copies are actually more error prone. Fourth, we find little evidence to support the claim that clone groups that span more than one file or directory are more defect prone than collocated clones. Finally, we find that developers do not need to put a disproportionately higher effort to fix clone dense bugs. Our findings do not support the claim that clones are really a "bad smell" ( 1999). Perhaps we can clone, and breathe easily, at the same time. To study the impact of code clones on software quality, researchers typically carry out their studies based on fine-grained analysis of inconsistent changes at the revision level. As a result, they capture much of the chaotic and experimental nature inherent in any on-going software development process. Analyzing highly fluctuating and short-lived clones is likely to exaggerate the ill effects of inconsistent changes on the quality of the released software product, as perceived by the end user. To gain a broader perspective, we perform an empirical study on the effect of inconsistent changes on software quality at the release level. Based on a case study on three open source software systems, we observe that only 1.02 -4.00 of all clone genealogies introduce software defects at the release level, as opposed to the substantially higher percentages reported by previous studies at the revision level. Our findings suggest that clones do not have a significant impact on the post-release quality of the studied systems, and that the developers are able to effectively manage the evolution of cloned code. If two fragments of source code are identical to each other, they are called code clones. Code clones introduce difficulties in software maintenance and cause bug propagation. Coarse-grained clone detectors have higher precision than fine-grained, but fine-grained detectors have higher recall than coarse-grained. In this paper, we present a hybrid clone detection technique that first uses a coarse-grained technique to analyze clones effectively to improve precision. Subsequently, we use a fine-grained detector to obtain additional information about the clones and to improve recall. Our method detects Type-1 and Type-2 clones using hash values for blocks, and gapped code clones (Type-3) using block detection and subsequent comparison between them using Levenshtein distance and Cosine measures with varying thresholds.