On the Documentation of Refactoring Types

TL;DR

This study investigates how well commit messages document refactoring activities, proposing a text mining approach to predict refactoring types and highlighting the variability in documentation quality across different refactoring operations.

Contribution

It introduces a model that predicts refactoring types from commit messages, revealing documentation inconsistencies and emphasizing the need for better developer documentation practices.

Findings

Rename and Extract methods are well documented.

Pull-up and Push-down methods are poorly documented.

Prediction accuracy varies by refactoring type.

Abstract

Commit messages are the atomic level of software documentation. They provide a natural language description of the code change and its purpose. Messages are critical for software maintenance and program comprehension. Unlike documenting feature updates and bug fixes, little is known about how developers document their refactoring activities. Developers can perform multiple refactoring operations, including moving methods, extracting classes, for various reasons. Yet, there is no systematic study that analyzes the extent to which the documentation of refactoring accurately describes the refactoring operations performed at the source code level. Therefore, this paper challenges the ability of refactoring documentation to adequately predict the refactoring types, performed at the commit level. Our analysis relies on the text mining of commit messages to extract the corresponding features that better represent each class. The extraction of text patterns, specific to each refactoring allows the design of a model that verifies the consistency of these patterns with their corresponding refactoring. Such verification process can be achieved via automatically predicting the method-level type of refactoring being applied, namely Extract Method, Inline Method, Move Method, Pull-up Method, Push-down Method, and Rename Method. We compared various classifiers, and a baseline keyword-based approach, in terms of their prediction performance, using a dataset of 5,004 commits. Our main findings show that the complexity of refactoring type prediction varies from one type to another. Rename method and Extract method were found to be the best documented refactoring activities, while Pull-up Method and Push-down Method were the hardest to be identified via textual descriptions. Such findings bring the attention of developers to the necessity of paying more attention to the documentation of these types.