通过结构度量进行技术债务本金评估

Makrina Viola Kosti, Apostolos Ampatzoglou, A. Chatzigeorgiou, Georgios Pallas, I. Stamelos, L. Angelis
{"title":"通过结构度量进行技术债务本金评估","authors":"Makrina Viola Kosti, Apostolos Ampatzoglou, A. Chatzigeorgiou, Georgios Pallas, I. Stamelos, L. Angelis","doi":"10.1109/SEAA.2017.59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the first steps towards the effective Technical Debt (TD) management is the quantification and continuous monitoring of the TD principal. In the current state-ofresearch and practice the most common ways to assess TD principal are the use of: (a) structural proxies—i.e., most commonly through quality metrics; and (b) monetized proxies—i.e., most commonly through the use of the SQALE (Software Quality Assessment based on Lifecycle Expectations) method. Although both approaches have merit, they seem to rely on different viewpoints of TD and their levels of agreement have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, in this paper, we empirically explore this relation by analyzing data obtained from 20 open source software projects and build a regression model that establishes a relationship between them. The results of the study suggest that a model of seven structural metrics, quantifying different aspects of quality (i.e., coupling, cohesion, complexity, size, and inheritance) can accurately estimate TD principal as appraised by SonarQube. The results of this case study are useful to both academia and industry. In particular, academia can gain knowledge on: (a) the reliability and agreement of TD principal assessment methods and (b) the structural characteristics of software that contribute to the accumulation of TD, whereas practitioners are provided with an alternative evaluation model with reduced number of parameters that can accurately assess TD, through traditional software quality metrics and tools.","PeriodicalId":151513,"journal":{"name":"2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Technical Debt Principal Assessment Through Structural Metrics\",\"authors\":\"Makrina Viola Kosti, Apostolos Ampatzoglou, A. Chatzigeorgiou, Georgios Pallas, I. Stamelos, L. Angelis\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SEAA.2017.59\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the first steps towards the effective Technical Debt (TD) management is the quantification and continuous monitoring of the TD principal. In the current state-ofresearch and practice the most common ways to assess TD principal are the use of: (a) structural proxies—i.e., most commonly through quality metrics; and (b) monetized proxies—i.e., most commonly through the use of the SQALE (Software Quality Assessment based on Lifecycle Expectations) method. Although both approaches have merit, they seem to rely on different viewpoints of TD and their levels of agreement have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, in this paper, we empirically explore this relation by analyzing data obtained from 20 open source software projects and build a regression model that establishes a relationship between them. The results of the study suggest that a model of seven structural metrics, quantifying different aspects of quality (i.e., coupling, cohesion, complexity, size, and inheritance) can accurately estimate TD principal as appraised by SonarQube. The results of this case study are useful to both academia and industry. In particular, academia can gain knowledge on: (a) the reliability and agreement of TD principal assessment methods and (b) the structural characteristics of software that contribute to the accumulation of TD, whereas practitioners are provided with an alternative evaluation model with reduced number of parameters that can accurately assess TD, through traditional software quality metrics and tools.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2017.59\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2017.59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

对技术债务进行有效管理的第一步是对技术债务本金进行量化和持续监控。在目前的研究和实践中,评估TD本金最常见的方法是使用:(a)结构性代理,即:,最常见的是通过质量指标;(b)货币化代理。,最常见的是通过使用SQALE(基于生命周期期望的软件质量评估)方法。虽然这两种方法都有优点,但它们似乎依赖于不同的TD观点,而且迄今为止它们的一致程度尚未得到评估。因此,本文通过对20个开源软件项目数据的分析,实证探讨了二者之间的关系,并建立了回归模型,建立了二者之间的关系。研究结果表明,量化质量不同方面(即耦合、内聚、复杂性、大小和继承)的七个结构度量模型可以准确地估计SonarQube评价的TD本金。本案例研究的结果对学术界和工业界都有借鉴意义。特别是,学术界可以获得以下方面的知识:(a)开发开发主要评估方法的可靠性和一致性,以及(b)有助于开发开发积累的软件的结构特征,而从业者则可以通过传统的软件质量度量和工具,获得一种可替代的评估模型,该模型的参数数量减少,可以准确地评估开发开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Technical Debt Principal Assessment Through Structural Metrics
One of the first steps towards the effective Technical Debt (TD) management is the quantification and continuous monitoring of the TD principal. In the current state-ofresearch and practice the most common ways to assess TD principal are the use of: (a) structural proxies—i.e., most commonly through quality metrics; and (b) monetized proxies—i.e., most commonly through the use of the SQALE (Software Quality Assessment based on Lifecycle Expectations) method. Although both approaches have merit, they seem to rely on different viewpoints of TD and their levels of agreement have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, in this paper, we empirically explore this relation by analyzing data obtained from 20 open source software projects and build a regression model that establishes a relationship between them. The results of the study suggest that a model of seven structural metrics, quantifying different aspects of quality (i.e., coupling, cohesion, complexity, size, and inheritance) can accurately estimate TD principal as appraised by SonarQube. The results of this case study are useful to both academia and industry. In particular, academia can gain knowledge on: (a) the reliability and agreement of TD principal assessment methods and (b) the structural characteristics of software that contribute to the accumulation of TD, whereas practitioners are provided with an alternative evaluation model with reduced number of parameters that can accurately assess TD, through traditional software quality metrics and tools.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Patterns for Designing and Implementing an Environment for Software Start-Up Education Assessment of Agility in Software Organizations with a Web-Based Agility Assessment Tool Continuous practices and devops: beyond the buzz, what does it all mean? Guiding Quality Assurance for Mobile Applications with FIT4Apps — A Two-Step Evaluation A Literature Study on Privacy Patterns Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1