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.
@cite_10 introduced the notion of : The genealogy of code clones describes how groups of code clones change over multiple versions of a program.'' This kind of approach was used in several studies to investigate if type-3 clones are associated to faults.
@cite_10
2074529754
It has been broadly assumed that code clones are inherently bad and that eliminating clones by refactoring would solve the problems of code clones. To investigate the validity of this assumption, we developed a formal denition of clone evolution and built a clone genealogy tool that automatically extracts the history of code clones from a source code repository. Using our tool we extracted clone genealogy information for two Java open source projects and analyzed their evolution. Our study contradicts some conventional wisdom about clones. In particular, refactoring may not always improve software with respect to clones for two reasons. First, many code clones exist in the system for only a short time; extensive refactoring of such short-lived clones may not be worthwhile if they are likely diverge from one another very soon. Second, many clones, especially long-lived clones that have changed consistently with other elements in the same group, are not easily refactorable due to programming language limitations. These insights show that refactoring will not help in dealing with some types of clones and open up opportunities for complementary clone maintenance tools that target these other classes of clones.