DOCSLIB.ORG

Master's Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Master's Thesis MASTER'S THESIS Automatic Measurement of Source Code Complexity Hassan Raza Bhatti Master of Science Computer Science and Engineering Luleå University of Technology Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering ABSTRACT The aim of this master thesis is to explore the area of software metrics and to identify software metrics related to the code complexity. In this thesis, thorough study is made to determine whether or not the automatic measurement of source code complexity is possible. A tool for automatic measurement of source code complexity is implemented during this thesis to prove the idea that the automatic measurement is achievable. This report summaries the theory about software metrics, purpose and classification of the metrics, and the areas where metrics can be helpful to use. Detail description about some selected metrics (like Cyclomatic Complexity and Halstead metrics) is also a part of this report. Three core requirements of this thesis are: 1) Measurement of code complexity for the code written in C. 2) Measurement should perform automatically on the code base and on a regular basis for new code releases. 3) Run on Solaris. Some of the existing complexity measurement tools (open-source and commercial) are evaluated in this thesis. QA-C is an existing commercially available tool for the code complexity of C code. The tool implemented in this thesis uses QA-C as a foundation for analyzing C code on Solaris. Web interfaces are designed to present the results of code complexity measurement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Area .................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Research ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Implementation ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 The Given System .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 The Method ....................................................................................................... 2 1.4.1 Pre-study .................................................................................................... 2 1.4.2 Implementation of tool .................................................................................. 2 1.5 Delimitation ...................................................................................................... 3 SOFTWARE METRICS .................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Uses of Software Metrics ..................................................................................... 4 2.2 Classification of Software Metrics ......................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Process metrics ............................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Product metrics ............................................................................................ 5 2.2.3 Resource metrics .......................................................................................... 6 2.3 Software Code Metrics ........................................................................................ 6 2.3.1 Quantitative metrics ..................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Metrics of program flow complexity ................................................................ 6 2.3.3 Metrics of data control flow's complexity ......................................................... 7 2.3.4 Metrics of control flow and data flow complexity ............................................... 7 2.3.5 Object-oriented metrics................................................................................. 7 2.3.6 Safety metrics ............................................................................................. 7 2.3.7 Hybrid metrics ............................................................................................. 7 2.4 Code Complexity ................................................................................................ 7 SELECTION OF METRICS ............................................................................................. 9 3.1 Source Line of Code (SLOC) ................................................................................ 9 3.1.1 Advantages ................................................................................................. 9 3.1.2 Disadvantages ............................................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Motivation ................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Halstead Software Science ................................................................................ 10 3.2.1 Halstead formulas ...................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Problems with Halstead metrics .................................................................... 14 iii 3.2.3 Motivation ................................................................................................. 14 3.3 ABC Metric ...................................................................................................... 15 3.3.1 Advantages ............................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Disadvantages ........................................................................................... 15 3.3.3 Motivation ................................................................................................. 15 3.4 McCabe Cyclomatic Complexity .......................................................................... 15 3.4.1 Advantages ............................................................................................... 16 3.4.2 Disadvantages ........................................................................................... 16 3.4.3 Motivation ................................................................................................. 17 3.5 Henry and Kafura's Information Flow Metric ........................................................ 17 3.5.1 Advantages ............................................................................................... 18 3.5.2 Disadvantages ........................................................................................... 18 3.5.3 Motivation ................................................................................................. 18 3.6 Maintainability Index (MI) ................................................................................. 18 3.6.1 Construction of MI ...................................................................................... 18 3.6.2 Advantages ............................................................................................... 20 3.6.2 Disadvantages ........................................................................................... 20 3.6.3 Motivation ................................................................................................. 20 3.7 Other Metrics .................................................................................................. 20 3.7.1 Variants of Line of Code metric .................................................................... 21 3.7.2 Function metrics......................................................................................... 21 3.7.3 File/Project metrics ..................................................................................... 22 3.8 Combination of Metrics ..................................................................................... 22 3.8.1 Proposed metric suite ................................................................................. 22 EXISTING TOOLS FOR CODE COMPLEXITY ................................................................... 24 4.1 Understand ..................................................................................................... 25 4.1.1 Tool evaluation .......................................................................................... 25 4.2 Resource Standard Metrics (RSM) ...................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Tool evaluation .......................................................................................... 25 4.3 Testwell CMT++ .............................................................................................. 26 4.3.1 Tool evaluation .......................................................................................... 26 4.4 QA-C Source Code Analyzer .............................................................................. 27 4.4.1 Tool evaluation .......................................................................................... 27 4.5 Other Tools ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Summation to Aggregate Software Metrics Hinders the Performance of Defect Prediction Models
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XXX 2016 1 The Use of Summation to Aggregate Software Metrics Hinders the Performance of Defect Prediction Models Feng Zhang, Ahmed E. Hassan, Member, IEEE, Shane McIntosh, Member, IEEE, and Ying Zou, Member, IEEE Abstract—Defect prediction models help software organizations to anticipate where defects will appear in the future. When training a defect prediction model, historical defect data is often mined from a Version Control System (VCS, e.g., Subversion), which records software changes at the file-level. Software metrics, on the other hand, are often calculated at the class- or method-level (e.g., McCabe’s Cyclomatic Complexity). To address the disagreement in granularity, the class- and method-level software metrics are aggregated to file-level, often using summation (i.e., McCabe of a file is the sum of the McCabe of all methods within the file). A recent study shows that summation significantly inflates the correlation between lines of code (Sloc) and cyclomatic complexity (Cc) in Java projects. While there are many other aggregation schemes (e.g., central tendency, dispersion), they have remained unexplored in the scope of defect prediction. In this study, we set out to investigate how different aggregation schemes impact defect prediction models. Through an analysis of 11 aggregation schemes using data collected from 255 open source projects, we find that: (1) aggregation schemes can significantly alter correlations among metrics, as well as the correlations between metrics and
    [Show full text]
  • Software Maintainability a Brief Overview & Application to the LFEV 2015
    Software Maintainability A Brief Overview & Application to the LFEV 2015 Adam I. Cornwell Lafayette College Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Easton, Pennsylvania [email protected] Abstract — This paper gives a brief introduction on For “lexical level” approaches which base what software maintainability is, the various methods complexity on program code, the following which have been devised to quantify and measure software maintainability, its relevance to the ECE 492 measurands are typical: individual and average Senior Design course, and some practical lines of code; number of commented lines, implementation guidelines. executable statements, blank lines, tokens, and data declarations; source code readability, or the Keywords — Software Maintainability; Halstead ratio of LOC to commented LOC; Halstead Metrics; McCabe’s Cyclomatic complexity; radon Metrics, including Halstead Length, Volume, and Effort; McCabe’s Cyclomatic Complexity; the I. INTRODUCTION control structure nesting level; and the number of Software Maintainability is an important knots, or the number of times the control flow concept in the upkeep of long-term software crosses. The final measurand is not as useful with systems. According to the IEEE, software object oriented programming but can still be of maintainability is defined as “the ease with which some use. a software system or component can be modified to correct faults, improve performance or other “Psychological complexity” approaches measure attributes, or adapt to a changed environment difficulty and are based on understandability and [1].” Software Maintainability can be measured the user [3]. The nature of the file and the using various devised methods, although none difficulty experienced by those working with the have been conclusively shown to work in a large file are what contribute to these kinds of variety of software systems [6].
    [Show full text]
  • A Metrics-Based Software Maintenance Effort Model
    A Metrics-Based Software Maintenance Effort Model Jane Huffman Hayes Sandip C. Patel Liming Zhao Computer Science Department Computer Science Department Computer Science Department Lab for Advanced Networking University of Louisville University of Kentucky University of Kentucky [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract planning a new software development project. Albrecht introduced the notion of function points (FP) to estimate We derive a model for estimating adaptive software effort [1]. Mukhopadhyay [19] proposes early software maintenance effort in person hours, the Adaptive cost estimation based on requirements alone. Software Maintenance Effort Model (AMEffMo). A number of Life Cycle Management (SLIM) [23] is based on the metrics such as lines of code changed and number of Norden/Rayleigh function and is suitable for large operators changed were found to be strongly correlated projects. Shepperd et al. [27] argued that algorithmic cost to maintenance effort. The regression models performed models such as COCOMO and those based on function well in predicting adaptive maintenance effort as well as points suggested an approach based on using analogous provide useful information for managers and maintainers. projects to estimate the effort for a new project. In addition to the traditional off-the-self models such as 1. Introduction COCOMO, machine-learning methods have surfaced recently. In [17], Mair et al. compared machine-learning Software maintenance typically accounts for at least 50 methods in building software effort prediction systems. percent of the total lifetime cost of a software system [16]. There has also been some work toward applying fuzzy Schach et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Correlation Among Software Complexity Metrics with Case Study
    International Journal of Advanced Computer Research (ISSN (print): 2249-7277 ISSN (online): 2277-7970) Volume-4 Number-2 Issue-15 June-2014 The Correlation among Software Complexity Metrics with Case Study Yahya Tashtoush1, Mohammed Al-Maolegi2, Bassam Arkok3 Abstract software product attributes such as functionality, quality, complexity, efficiency, reliability or People demand for software quality is growing maintainability. For example, a higher number of increasingly, thus different scales for the software code lines will lead to greater software complexity are growing fast to handle the quality of software. and so on. The software complexity metric is one of the measurements that use some of the internal The complexity of software effects on maintenance attributes or characteristics of software to know how activities like software testability, reusability, they effect on the software quality. In this paper, we understandability and modifiability. Software cover some of more efficient software complexity complexity is defined as ―the degree to which a metrics such as Cyclomatic complexity, line of code system or component has a design or implementation and Hallstead complexity metric. This paper that is difficult to understand and verify‖ [1]. All the presents their impacts on the software quality. It factors that make program difficult to understand are also discusses and analyzes the correlation between responsible for complexity. So it is necessary to find them. It finally reveals their relation with the measurements for software to reduce the impacts of number of errors using a real dataset as a case the complexity and guarantee the quality at the same study. time as much as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • DRE) for Software
    Exceeding 99% in Defect Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Software Draft 11.0 September 6, 2016 Capers Jones, VP and CTO, Namcook Analytics LLC Abstract Software quality depends upon two important variables. The first variable is that of “defect potentials” or the sum total of bugs likely to occur in requirements, architecture, design, code, documents, and “bad fixes” or new bugs in bug repairs. Defect potentials are measured using function point metrics, since “lines of code” cannot deal with requirements and design defects. (This paper uses IFPUG function points version 4.3. The newer SNAP metrics are only shown experimentally due to insufficient empirical quality data with SNAP as of 2016. However an experimental tool is included for calculating SNAP defects.) The second important measure is “defect removal efficiency (DRE)” or the percentage of bugs found and eliminated before release of software to clients. The metrics of Defect Potentials and Defect Removal Efficiency (DRE) were developed by IBM circa 1973 and are widely used by technology companies and also by insurance companies, banks, and other companies with large software organizations. The author’s Software Risk Master (SRM) estimating tool predicts defect potentials and defect removal efficiency (DRE) as standard quality outputs for all software projects. Web: www.Namcook.com Email: [email protected] Copyright © 2016 by Capers Jones. All rights reserved. 1 Introduction Defect potentials and defect removal efficiency (DRE) are useful quality metrics developed by IBM circa 1973 and widely used by technology companies as well as by banks, insurance companies, and other organizations with large software staffs. This combination of defect potentials using function points and defect removal efficiency (DRE) are the only accurate and effective measures for software quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Reliability of Software Testing Adequacy Criteria and Reference Test Systems
    Empirical Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Reliability of Software Testing Adequacy Criteria and Reference Test Systems Mark Jason Hadley PhD University of York Department of Computer Science September 2013 2 Abstract This PhD Thesis reports the results of experiments conducted to investigate the effectiveness and reliability of ‘adequacy criteria’ - criteria used by testers to determine when to stop testing. The research reported here is concerned with the empirical determination of the effectiveness and reliability of both tests sets that satisfy major general structural code coverage criteria and test sets crafted by experts for testing specific applications. We use automated test data generation and subset extraction techniques to generate multiple tests sets satisfying widely used coverage criteria (statement, branch and MC/DC coverage). The results show that confidence in the reliability of such criteria is misplaced. We also consider the fault-finding capabilities of three test suites created by the international community to serve to assure implementations of the Data Encryption Standard (a block cipher). We do this by means of mutation analysis. The results show that not all sets are mutation adequate but the test suites are generally highly effective. The block cipher implementations are also seen to be highly ‘testable’ (i.e. they do not mask faults). 3 Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 3 Table of Tables ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SOFTWARE TESTING Aarti Singh
    © November 2015 | IJIRT | Volume 2 Issue 6 | ISSN: 2349-6002 SOFTWARE TESTING Aarti Singh ABSTRACT:- Software testing is an investigation can be installed and run in its conducted to provide stakeholders with intended environments, and information about the quality of the product or achieves the general result its stakeholders service under test Software testing can also desire. provide an objective, independent view of Software testing can be conducted as soon as thesoftware to allow the business to appreciate executable software (even if partially complete) and understand the risks of software exists. The overall approach to software implementation.In this paper we will discuss development often determines when and how testing about testing levels suct as alpha testing , beta is conducted. For example, in a phased process, most testing, unit testing , integrity testing, testing testing occurs after system requirements have been cycle and their requirement n comparison defined and then implemented in testable programs. between varius testing such as static and dynamic HISTORY: testing. The separation of debugging from testing was initially introduced by Glenford J. Myers in INTRODUCTION: 1979.[] Although his attention was on breakage Software testing involves the execution of a testing ("a successful test is one that finds a bug) it software component or system component to illustrated the desire of the software engineering evaluate one or more properties of interest. In community to separate fundamental development general, these
    [Show full text]
  • Lightweight Requirements Engineering Metrics Designing And
    Universiteit Leiden ICT in Business and the Public Sector Lightweight Requirements Engineering Metrics Designing and evaluating requirements engineering metrics for software development in complex IT environments – Case study Name: Jenny Yung Student-no: s0952249 Date: 18/04/2019 1st supervisor: Werner Heijstek 2nd supervisor: Guus Ramackers Pagina 1 van 83 Abstract The software development industry is relatively young and has matured considerably in the past 15 years. With several major transformations, the industry continues to seek ways to improve their delivery. A while ago, the waterfall method was the standard option for software development projects. Today, agile methodology is used more frequently. New development engineering practices are developed like standardization, continuous integration or continuous delivery. However, the consensus of being predictable and repeatable is not yet there. Agile software development and delivery are still not sufficiently reliable, resulting in expensive and unpredictable projects. In this thesis, measurements in requirements engineering are introduced. This paper presents a maturity model to assess the requirements engineering in complex IT environments. Companies strive to improve their software production and delivery, and the study aims to find a lightweight requirements metric method. The method is compared with a library of abstract metric models. The case study is performed at three different companies, and experts evaluated the conceptual metric system. As a result, a Requirements Engineering Maturity scan (REMS) is created. The tool suggests appropriate generic requirements metrics to deal with the encountered project. The paper concludes a review with related work and a discussion of the prospects for REMS. Keywords: Requirements Engineering • Quality Measurements • Metrics • ISO/IEC 9126 • Agile Methodology • Requirements Engineering Maturity Scan • Complex IT Infrastructure • Pagina 2 van 83 Acknowledgement Anyone writing a thesis will tell you it is a lot of work, and they are right.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding ROI Metrics for Software Test Automation
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2005 Understanding ROI Metrics for Software Test Automation Naveen Jayachandran University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons Scholar Commons Citation Jayachandran, Naveen, "Understanding ROI Metrics for Software Test Automation" (2005). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/2938 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Understanding ROI Metrics for Software Test Automation by Naveen Jayachandran A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Dewey Rundus, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Alan Hevner, Ph.D. Member: Rafael Perez, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 2, 2005 Keywords: Return on investment metrics, automated testing feasibility, manual vs. automated testing, software quality assurance, regression testing, repetitive testing © Copyright 2005, Naveen Jayachandran Dedication To my Parents, Suja, Rocky and Reemo. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my major professors Dr. Alan Hevner and Dr. Dewey Rundus for recognizing and encouraging my interest, giving me this opportunity and providing constant support for my research. I have gained immensely from this experience enabling me to truly appreciate the saying – ‘The journey is more important than the destination’.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Steps to Useful Software Metrics
    12 Steps to Useful Software Metrics Linda Westfall The Westfall Team [email protected] PMB 101, 3000 Custer Road, Suite 270 Plano, TX 75075 972-867-1172 (voice) 972-943-1484 (fax) Abstract: 12 Steps to Useful Software Metrics introduces the reader to a practical process for establishing and tailoring a software metrics program that focuses on goals and information needs. The process provides a practical, systematic, start-to-finish method of selecting, designing and implementing software metrics. It outlines a cookbook method that the reader can use to simplify the journey from software metrics in concept to delivered information. Bio: Linda Westfall is the President of The Westfall Team, which provides Software Metrics and Software Quality Engineering training and consulting services. Prior to starting her own business, Linda was the Senior Manager of the Quality Metrics and Analysis at DSC Communications where her team designed and implemented a corporate wide metric program. Linda has more than twenty-five years of experience in real-time software engineering, quality and metrics. She has worked as a Software Engineer, Systems Analyst, Software Process Engineer and Manager of Production Software. Very active professionally, Linda Westfall is a past chair of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Software Division. She has also served as the Software Division’s Program Chair and Certification Chair and on the ASQ National Certification Board. Linda is a past-chair of the Association for Software Engineering Excellence (ASEE) and has chaired several conference program committees. Linda Westfall has an MBA from the University of Texas at Dallas and BS in Mathematics from Carnegie- Mellon University.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Metrics: Investigating Success Factors, Challenges, Solutions and New Research Directions
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 08, AUGUST 2020 ISSN 2277-8616 Software Metrics: Investigating Success Factors, Challenges, Solutions And New Research Directions Hina Noor, Dr. Babur Hayat, AbuBakar Hamid, Tamoor Wakeel, Rashida Nasim Abstract: Software metrics is becoming important every day. A measure of software characteristics which are countable or measurable is known as software metrics. Software metrics are very important because they are used for many purposes for example, estimating efficiency, arranging work things and estimating execution of software etc. Software product and software development process specific attributes are measured by software metrics. Many metrics related to coupling, cohesion etc. have been defined. This paper investigates success factors and challenges in the implementation of software metrics and also tries to investigate solutions to those challenges. The paper explains new research directions to software metrics as well which really a need of today. Index Terms: Software metrics, Measurements, Types of metrics, Success factors of software metrics, Challenges in implementation of software metrics, New research directions in software metrics. —————————— —————————— 1. INTRODUCTION IN software, measurements are done using software metrics. A software metric is a measurement measure of the degree to which a software program or procedure has certain capital. Even if a metric is not a measure (metrics are functions, while measurements are the numbers obtained through metric application) [1]. Accurate measurement for all engineering fields is a requirement and software engineering is no different. For decades engineers and academics are persuading to communicate numerical software functionality to enable quality assurance of software. A broad variety of quality software measures have been created and there are various methods to obtain measures from system representations [2], [20].
    [Show full text]
  • A Cyclomatic Complexity Visual Tool for Simple Source Code Coverage Omar M
    Volume 7, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN: 2277 128X International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Research Paper Available online at: www.ijarcsse.com A Cyclomatic Complexity Visual Tool For Simple Source Code Coverage Omar M. Sallabi* Ahmad R. Benhalloum Mohamed A. Hagal Faculty of Information Technology, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Science, University of Benghazi, Libya University of Benghazi, Libya University of Kastamonu, Turkey DOI: 10.23956/ijarcsse/SV7I5/0172 Abstract— Software testing is an important part of the software development lifecycle, starting testing from initial stages allows us to avoid the difficulty of fixing bugs in advanced syages[7]. Many testing techniques have been used to discover any errors or software bugs raised during the implementation. One the of the widely used technique is the White-Box testing technique, which focuses on the structure of source code, by calculates the execution complexity of the software through the paths and control points. The tool shows visually the testing paths in a graphical way, and directs the tester to perform the test during the paths, the programmer can grantee that all pieces of the software are covered and tested. However, performs withe-Box testing manually is very difficult and requires more time and effort. In this paper, we have attempted to build an implementation tool to find test paths for any code written in Visual Basic (VB) language Keywords— Software engineering, Testing, Cyclomatic complexity I. INTRODUCTION The process of software testing is an important and difficult process. One of the common techniques is the structural testing technique.
    [Show full text]