Tracking structural evolution using origin analysis
Download
1 / 15

Tracking Structural Evolution using Origin Analysis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 76 Views
  • Uploaded on

Tracking Structural Evolution using Origin Analysis. Michael Godfrey and Qiang Tu Software Architecture Group (SWAG) University of Waterloo. Overview. Open questions in software evolution research Motivation “Origin analysis” and Beagle Efficiency considerations An example

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Tracking Structural Evolution using Origin Analysis' - thaddeus-munoz


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Tracking structural evolution using origin analysis

Tracking Structural Evolution using Origin Analysis

Michael Godfrey and Qiang Tu

Software Architecture Group (SWAG)

University of Waterloo


Overview
Overview

  • Open questions in software evolution research

  • Motivation

  • “Origin analysis” and Beagle

  • Efficiency considerations

  • An example

  • Open questions in origin analysis

IWPSE-02


Some open questions
Some open questions

  • Philosophical:

    • Does software evolve in the same way as frogs and social structures?

      • The Nature of Economies, by Jane Jacobs

    • What are the recurring patterns and compelling metaphors of software evolution?

  • Methodological:

    • How to measure size?

      • How to correlate size and quality?

    • How to measure change?

      • How to model architectural change?

    • What is the predictive power of such models?

      • Do the “other phenomena” dominate?

IWPSE-02


Some open questions1
Some open questions

  • Practical:

    • What information do developers need to know about how a software system has evolved?

    • What kinds of tools would be useful:

      • to the front-line developer?

      • to the manager?

    • How best to deal with:

      • Large data sets (large_system  many_versions)

      • Visualization and navigation

IWPSE-02


Motivation
Motivation

  • Want to build tools to aid developers in understanding how software evolves.

    • Change can be mostly additive … or much more invasive

  • Building an accurate model of how a system has evolved is hard in the presence of refactoring, redesign, structural and architectural change.

    • Usual assumption:

      • A change in name/location of a software entity means the old one died and a new one was born

    • … which means that “structural” discontinuities break old models of the system, and cause useful knowledge to be lost.

IWPSE-02


Motivation1
Motivation

  • This also begs the question of software artifact ontology:

    • What are the software entities/artifacts of interest in evolutionary studies?

      • All CVSd things?

      • “Hard” machine processable things, like source code files?

      • User docs, requirements docs, …?

      • Atomic vs. composite things?

        (subsystems vs. files vs. classes vs. methods)

    • What does it mean for an artifact/entity to be a different version of an older artifact/entity?

      • Same name? file? location? CVS control?

      • “Because I say so”?

IWPSE-02


Origin analysis
“Origin analysis”

Vold

z

g

x

y

???

Vnew

z

f

x

y

Suppose that:

  • f is the name of a software entity (e.g., function, type, global variable) of versionVnewof a software system.

  • There is no entity of the same name/kind in the previous version Vold

    We define origin analysis as the process of deciding:

  • if f was newly introduced in Vnew,or

  • if it should be more accurately viewed as a changed/moved/ renamed version of a differently named entity of Vold

IWPSE-02


The beagle tool iwpc 02
The Beagle tool[IWPC-02]

Design goals:

  • Support browsing of evolutionary histories of software systems

  • Visual navigation and querying

  • Architectural-level modelling

  • Compare system snapshots

  • Support identification and detection of change patterns

IWPSE-02


The beagle tool iwpc 021
The Beagle tool[IWPC-02]

At system check-in:

  • Populate database with “facts” and metrics info from various tools.

  • grok scripts “lift” facts to file/ subsystem /architectural level.

    At runtime:

  • SWAGkit (PBS) engine for visualization/navigation.

  • Java-based infrastructure using DB/2, VA-Java, IBM-Websphere.

IWPSE-02


Origin analysis two techniques
Origin analysis: Two techniques

  • Entity analysis(i.e., metrics-based “Bertillonage”)

    • For each “added” entity f:

      • Calculate combined Euclidean distance from each “deleted” entity for five metrics [Kostas].

      • Select top k matches; compare entity names.

  • Relationship analysis(e.g., calls, is-called-by, refs)

    • For each “added” entity f:

      • Find Rf, set of all entities that callf that are present in both versions.

      • For each gRf, calculate Qg, set of all “deleted” entities that gcalls in the old version.

      • Look at intersection of the Qgs; these are good candidates.

IWPSE-02


Efficiency considerations
Efficiency considerations

  • When comparing Vnew to Vold, need to find the entities that seem to have been added and deleted.

    • These sets are fast to determine.

    • Most subsequent calculations involve only these small subsets of the entire entity space (plus the other entities they have “relationships” with).

  • Computationally expensive approaches for clone detection (e.g., graph matching) were not considered.

    • Can’t pre-compute easily.

    • Precise matching not worth the effort, as it doesn’t seem to help much for this task.

IWPSE-02


Efficiency considerations1
Efficiency considerations

  • Entity analysis:

    • Entity info is generated by fact extractor and metrics tool.

      • Info is generated only once per version, when system is checked into repository.

    • Performing entity analysis is a matter of a simple numerical calculation on a small set of “likely candidates”.

  • Relationship analysis:

    • Relationship info (who-calls-whom, who-inherits-from-whom, etc.) is generated by fact extractor.

      • Info is generated only once per version, when system is checked into repository.

    • Computation and comparison of relational images is fairly fast.

      • Special-purpose tool (grok ) and relatively small amount of data.

IWPSE-02


Case study gcc g egcs
Case study: gcc/g++/egcs

  • Have extracted full info for 29 versions of gcc/g++/egcs

    • Want to examine major breaks in development to see how well origin analysis works.

  • EGCS v1.0 was forked from the GCC v2.7.2.3 codebase

    • EGCS project goals:

      • C++ compiler more ANSI compliant,

      • new FORTRAN front-end,

      • new optimizations and code-generation algorithms, …

    • … and EGCS introduced a new directory structure and a new file naming scheme, in addition to all of the other redesign and restructuring.

    • Naïve analysis indicated “everything old is new again” 

IWPSE-02


Case study gcc g egcs1
Case study: gcc/g++/egcs

  • Example:

    • The EGCS 1.0 Parser subsystem contains 15 (non-trivial) implementation files, comprising 848 functions.

    • Using origin analysis and common sense, Qiang decided that about half of the “new” functions weren’t new.

    • That’s still a massive amount of change for a new release of a compiler!

IWPSE-02


Origin analysis open issues
Origin analysis: Open issues

  • Origin analysis is a semi-automatic technique; it requires human intervention to make intelligent decisions.

    • In general, there’s no ultimate arbiter of correctness/appropriateness.

    • Techniques are fast and approximate.

      • Bertillonage, not DNA comparison

  • What are the most effective ways of performing entity and relationship analysis?

    • Which metrics? Which relationships? How best to combine them all?

    • Requires case studies, validation.

  • What is the best way to consider composite software entities?

    (e.g., files, classes, subsystems)

    • Can evaluate as atoms, or

    • Can simply use hints from contained entities.

IWPSE-02