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.
Rahman, Bird and Devanbu @cite_0 analysed clone genealogies in four open-source projects. They found that the majority of reported defects in the projects were not associated with clones. They also found that clones are less defect-prone and faults in clones need a similar fix effort as in other code.
@cite_0
1973650376
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.