A systematic literature review on the code smells datasets and validation mechanisms

June 02, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› ACM Computing Surveys

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Morteza Zakeri-Nasrabadi, Saeed Parsa, Ehsan Esmaili, Fabio Palomba arXiv ID 2306.01377 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Cross-listed cs.AI, cs.PL Citations 38 Venue ACM Computing Surveys Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
The accuracy reported for code smell-detecting tools varies depending on the dataset used to evaluate the tools. Our survey of 45 existing datasets reveals that the adequacy of a dataset for detecting smells highly depends on relevant properties such as the size, severity level, project types, number of each type of smell, number of smells, and the ratio of smelly to non-smelly samples in the dataset. Most existing datasets support God Class, Long Method, and Feature Envy while six smells in Fowler and Beck's catalog are not supported by any datasets. We conclude that existing datasets suffer from imbalanced samples, lack of supporting severity level, and restriction to Java language.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted