Refactored data clumps with the help of LLMs (research project) #9352

compf · 2024-06-05T14:12:48Z

Hello maintainers,

I am conducting a master thesis project focused on enhancing code quality through automated refactoring of data clumps, assisted by Large Language Models (LLMs).

Data clump definition

A data clump exists if

two methods (in the same or in different classes) have at least 3 common parameters and one of those methods does not override the other, or
At least three fields in a class are common with the parameters of a method (in the same or in a different class), or
Two different classes have at least three common fields

See also the following UML diagram as an example

I believe these refactoring can contribute to the project by reducing complexity and enhancing readability of your source code.

Pursuant to the EU AI Act, I fully disclose the use of LLMs in generating these refactorings, emphasizing that all changes have undergone human review for quality assurance.

Even if you decide not to integrate my changes to your codebase (which is perfectly fine), I ask you to fill out a feedback survey, which will be scientifically evaluated to determine the acceptance of AI-supported refactorings. You can find the feedback survey under https://campus.lamapoll.de/Data-clump-refactoring/en

Thank you for considering my contribution. I look forward to your feedback. If you have any other questions or comments, feel free to write a comment, or email me under [email protected] .

Best regards,
Timo Schoemaker
Department of Computer Science
University of Osnabrück

Proposed changelog entries

refactored data clumps

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Give feedback

The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.
Options

Desired reviewers

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Give feedback

There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).
Options

welcome · 2024-06-05T14:12:52Z

Yay, your first pull request towards Jenkins core was created successfully! Thank you so much!

A contributor will provide feedback soon. Meanwhile, you can join the chats and community forums to connect with other Jenkins users, developers, and maintainers.

mawinter69

What is common to all classes were you added the ProcessProperties is that they inherit from UnixProcess. So instead adding a new class just for the properties wouldn't it be better to just define the things in UnixProcess?

mawinter69 · 2024-06-05T18:15:14Z

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java

-            private int ppid = -1;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
+            private ProcessProperties properties = new ProcessProperties(-1, null, null);


Just wondering, in all other places the ProcessProperties are defined transient, why not here?

Thats seems to be a oversight by me. Spotbug complained that I should add transient everywhere and when it stopped complaining I didn't look more. Strange :)

It's unclear to me why the fields are being made transient. If it's SE_BAD_FIELD, wouldn't making ProcessProperties Serializable address this without potentially causing serialization trouble?

(FWIW removing the transient doesn't fail Spotbugs for me locally.)

compf · 2024-06-05T19:48:32Z

What is common to all classes were you added the ProcessProperties is that they inherit from UnixProcess. So instead adding a new class just for the properties wouldn't it be better to just define the things in UnixProcess?

Thank you for the feedback. In your particular case, that might be a better solution. But the LLM chooses the approach that always works, But I agree that pulling up those fields can also be a solution to solve data clumps :)

daniel-beck

Overall #9352 (review) seems preferable to a new type. The following should do it, all we'd lose is the finality of ppid, no different from this proposal.

diff --git a/core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java b/core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java
index 8fbb80c8a8..80155d3d37 100644
--- a/core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java
+++ b/core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java
@@ -796,6 +796,10 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
      * A process.
      */
     public abstract class UnixProcess extends OSProcess {
+        protected final int ppid = -1;
+        protected EnvVars envVars;
+        protected List<String> arguments;
+
         protected UnixProcess(int pid) {
             super(pid);
         }
@@ -877,9 +881,6 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
         }
 
         class LinuxProcess extends UnixProcess {
-            private int ppid = -1;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
 
             LinuxProcess(int pid) throws IOException {
                 super(pid);
@@ -1001,13 +1002,9 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
              */
             private final boolean b64;
 
-            private final int ppid;
-
             private final long pr_envp;
             private final long pr_argp;
             private final int argc;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
 
             private AIXProcess(int pid) throws IOException {
                 super(pid);
@@ -1327,7 +1324,6 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
              */
             private final boolean b64;
 
-            private final int ppid;
             /**
              * Address of the environment vector.
              */
@@ -1337,8 +1333,6 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
              */
             private final long argp;
             private final int argc;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
 
             private SolarisProcess(int pid) throws IOException {
                 super(pid);
@@ -1596,9 +1590,6 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
         }
 
         private class DarwinProcess extends UnixProcess {
-            private final int ppid;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
 
             DarwinProcess(int pid, int ppid) {
                 super(pid);
@@ -1881,10 +1872,6 @@ public abstract class ProcessTree implements Iterable<OSProcess>, IProcessTree,
 
         private class FreeBSDProcess extends UnixProcess {
 
-            private final int ppid;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
-
             FreeBSDProcess(int pid, int ppid) {
                 super(pid);
                 this.ppid = ppid;

daniel-beck · 2024-06-12T07:01:38Z

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessProperties.java

+import hudson.EnvVars;
+import java.util.List;
+
+public class ProcessProperties {


Why is this a public class?

daniel-beck · 2024-06-12T11:01:44Z

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java

-            private int ppid = -1;
-            private EnvVars envVars;
-            private List<String> arguments;
+            private ProcessProperties properties = new ProcessProperties(-1, null, null);


It's unclear to me why the fields are being made transient. If it's SE_BAD_FIELD, wouldn't making ProcessProperties Serializable address this without potentially causing serialization trouble?

(FWIW removing the transient doesn't fail Spotbugs for me locally.)

daniel-beck · 2024-06-12T11:01:54Z

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessProperties.java

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+package hudson.util;


Please add license header.

compf · 2024-06-13T12:14:20Z

Thank you very much for the feedback. @daniel-beck You are correct that your proposal is better. I haven't encountered this corner case where fields are shared in derived classes before so it is interesting that the LLM did not spot this. I can update this PR to use your "pulling fields up proposal" when I find time :)

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java

mawinter69 reviewed Jun 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

daniel-beck reviewed Jun 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

refactored data clumps

28e413e

compf force-pushed the refactor_data_clumps branch from adc07ee to 28e413e Compare June 17, 2024 13:06

daniel-beck reviewed Jun 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

core/src/main/java/hudson/util/ProcessTree.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

removed unnecessary implements

fb347bb

MarkEWaite added the skip-changelog Should not be shown in the changelog label Jun 24, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Refactored data clumps with the help of LLMs (research project) #9352

Refactored data clumps with the help of LLMs (research project) #9352

compf commented Jun 5, 2024

Submitter checklist

Maintainer checklist

welcome bot commented Jun 5, 2024

mawinter69 left a comment

mawinter69 Jun 5, 2024

compf Jun 5, 2024

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

compf commented Jun 5, 2024

daniel-beck left a comment •

edited

Loading

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

compf commented Jun 13, 2024

Refactored data clumps with the help of LLMs (research project) #9352

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Refactored data clumps with the help of LLMs (research project) #9352

Conversation

compf commented Jun 5, 2024

Proposed changelog entries

Proposed upgrade guidelines

Submitter checklist

Desired reviewers

Maintainer checklist

welcome bot commented Jun 5, 2024

mawinter69 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mawinter69 Jun 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

compf Jun 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

compf commented Jun 5, 2024

daniel-beck left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daniel-beck Jun 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

compf commented Jun 13, 2024

daniel-beck left a comment •

edited

Loading