The size of a software artifact influences the software quality and impacts the development process. In industry, when software size exceeds certain thresholds, memory errors accumulate and development tools might not be able to cope anymore, resulting in a lengthy program start up times, failing builds, or memory problems at unpredictable times. Thus, foreseeing critical growth in software modules meets a high demand in industrial practice. Predicting the time when the size grows to the level where maintenance is needed prevents unexpected efforts and helps to spot problematic artifacts before they become critical. Although the amount of prediction approaches in literature is vast, it is unclear how well they fit with prerequisites and expectations from practice. In this paper, we perform an industrial case study at an automotive manufacturer to explore applicability and usability of prediction approaches in practice. In a first step, we collect the most relevant prediction approaches from literature, including both, approaches using statistics and machine learning. Furthermore, we elicit expectations towards predictions from practitioners using a survey and stakeholder workshops. At the same time, we measure software size of 48 software artifacts by mining four years of revision history, resulting in 4,547 data points. In the last step, we assess the applicability of state-of-the-art prediction approaches using the collected data by systematically analyzing how well they fulfill the practitioners' expectations. Our main contribution is a comparison of commonly used prediction approaches in a real world industrial setting while considering stakeholder expectations. We show that the approaches provide significantly different results regarding prediction accuracy and that the statistical approaches fit our data best.
Software development results in a huge amount of data: changes to source code are recorded in version archives, bugs are reported to issue tracking systems, and communications are archived in e-mails and newsgroups. We present techniques for mining version archives and bug databases to understand and support software development. First, we introduce the concept of co-addition of method calls, which we use to identify patterns that describe how methods should be called. We use dynamic analysis to validate these patterns and identify violations. The co-addition of method calls can also detect cross-cutting changes, which are an indicator for concerns that could have been realized as aspects in aspect-oriented programming. Second, we present techniques to build models that can successfully predict the most defect-prone parts of large-scale industrial software, in our experiments Windows Server 2003. This helps managers to allocate resources for quality assurance to those parts of a system that are expected to have most defects. The proposed measures on dependency graphs outperformed traditional complexity metrics. In addition, we found empirical evidence for a domino effect, i.e., depending on defect-prone binaries increases the chances of having defects. Refactoring is widely practiced by developers, and considerable research and development effort has been invested in refactoring tools. However, little has been reported about the adoption of refactoring tools, and many assumptions about refactoring practice have little empirical support. In this paper, we examine refactoring tool usage and evaluate some of the assumptions made by other researchers. To measure tool usage, we randomly sampled code changes from four Eclipse and eight Mylyn developers and ascertained, for each refactoring, if it was performed manually or with tool support. We found that refactoring tools are seldom used: 11 percent by Eclipse developers and 9 percent by Mylyn developers. To understand refactoring practice at large, we drew from a variety of data sets spanning more than 39,000 developers, 240,000 tool-assisted refactorings, 2,500 developer hours, and 12,000 version control commits. Using these data, we cast doubt on several previously stated assumptions about how programmers refactor, while validating others. Finally, we interviewed the Eclipse and Mylyn developers to help us understand why they did not use refactoring tools and to gather ideas for future research.