RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF AUTOMATED REFACTORING TOOLS ON USER SATISFACTION IN THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS REENGINEERING PROCESS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24867/28OI01ZuberKeywords:
Automated tools, Refactoring, Reengineering, Information systemsAbstract
Reengineering information systems represents a complex process of transforming existing systems with the aim of improving performance, efficiency, and functionality. This research focused on examining the impact of using automated refactoring tools on user satisfaction in this process. Automated refactoring tools are software tools that enable automated analysis and restructuring of the system's source code, aiming to improve its structure, readability, and maintainability. These tools are increasingly used in the information systems reengineering process to expedite and enhance the transformation process. A quantitative approach was employed in the research, and data were collected through a survey. The analysis of the collected data indicated that the use of automated refactoring tools has a positive impact on user satisfaction in the information systems reengineering process. SonarQube is the most recognized and commonly used refactoring tool, known to 94.4% of respondents and used by 88.9% of them. The majority of users expressed high satisfaction with the tool's results (83.3%), emphasizing its efficiency and speed of refactoring. Although most respondents did not identify significant drawbacks in the chosen tool, some pointed out the need for better integration into development environments and higher standards for such tools.
References
[2] M. Vidal and A. Polino, “Assessing the Impact of Refactoring Activities on Software Quality: A Longitudinal Study,” 2016.
[3] C. Sahin, L. Pollock, and J. Clause, “How do code refactorings affect energy usage?,” Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2014.
[4] M. Kohler and G. Salvaneschi, “Automated Refactoring to Reactive Programming,” 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2019.
[5] D. Oliveira, A. C. Bibiano, and A. Garcia, “On the Customization of Batch Refactoring,” IEEE/ACM 3rd International Workshop on Refactoring, 2019.
[6] Anna Maria Eilertsen, “Predictable, Flexible or Correct: Trading off Refactoring Design Choices,” IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (ICSEW), 2020.
[7] Valentina Lenarduzzi, Nyyti Saarimäki, and Davide TaibiSome, “SonarQube issues have a significant but small effect on faults and changes. A large-scale empirical study,” 2020.
[8] M. T. Baldassarre, V. Lenarduzzi, S. Romano, and N. Saarimäki, “On the Diffuseness of Technical Debt Items and Accuracy of Remediation Time When Using SonarQube.,” 2020.
[9] V. Lenarduzzi, F. Lomio, H. Huttunen, and D. Taibi, “Are SonarQube Rules Inducing Bugs?,” IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2020.
[10] “Google Forms.” Accessed: Nov. 30, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/forms/about/
