Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical study of Android behavioural code smells detection

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mobile applications (apps) are developed quickly and evolve continuously. Each development iteration may introduce poor design choices, and therefore produce code smells. Code smells complexify source code and may impede the evolution and performance of mobile apps. In addition to common object-oriented code smells, mobile apps have their own code smells because of their limitations and constraints on resources like memory, performance and energy consumption. Some of these mobile-specific smells are behavioural because they describe an inappropriate behaviour that may negatively impact software quality. Many tools exist to detect code smells in mobile apps, based specifically on static analysis techniques. In this paper, we are especially interested in two tools: Paprika and aDoctor. Both tools use representative techniques from the literature and contain behavioural code smells. We analyse the effectiveness of behavioural code smells detection in practice within the tools of concern by performing an empirical study of code smells detected in apps. This empirical study aims to answer two research questions. First, are the detection tools effective in detecting behavioural code smells? Second, are the behavioural code smells detected by the tools consistent with their original literal definition? We emphasise the limitations of detection using only static techniques and the lessons learned from our empirical study. This study shows that established static analysis methods deemed to be effective for code smells detection are inadequate for behavioural mobile code smells detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almalki K (2018) Bad droid! An in-depth empirical study on the occurrence and impact of android specific code smells. Ph.D. thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology

  • Banerjee A, Chong L K, Chattopadhyay S, Roychoudhury A (2014) Detecting energy bugs and hotspots in mobile apps. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering

  • Dennis C, Krutz D E, Mkaouer M W (2017) P-lint: a permission smell detector for android applications. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 4th international conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft), pp 219–220

  • Developer.Android (2022) Onlowmemory. https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/ComponentCallbacks#onLowMemory(). Online, Accessed Aug 2022

  • Developer.Android (2020) Arraymap. https://developer.android.com/reference/android/support/v4/util/ArrayMap.html. Online, Accessed Aug 2022

  • Elsayed E K, ElDahshan K A, El-Sharawy E E, Ghannam N E (2019) Reverse engineering approach for improving the quality of mobile applications. PeerJ Comput Sci 5

  • Emden E V, Moonen L (2002) Java quality assurance by detecting code smells. In: Ninth working conference on reverse engineering. Proceedings, pp 97–106

  • Fard A M, Mesbah A (2013) Jsnose: detecting javascript code smells. In: 2013 IEEE 13th international working conference on source code analysis and manipulation (SCAM), pp 116–125

  • Fowler M (1999) Refactoring—improving the design of existing code, 1 edn. Addison-Wesley

  • Gadient P, Ghafari M, Frischknecht P, Nierstrasz O (2018) Security code smells in android icc. Empir Softw Eng 1–31

  • Ghafari M, Gadient P, Nierstrasz O (2017) Security smells in android. In: 2017 IEEE 17th international working conference on source code analysis and manipulation (SCAM), pp 121–130

  • Gottschalk M, Josefiok M, Jelschen J, Winter A (2012) Removing energy code smells with reengineering services. In: GI-Jahrestagung

  • Haase C (2015) Developing for android ii the rules: memory. https://medium.com/google-developers/developing-for-android-ii-bb9a51f8c8b9. Online, Accessed May 2021

  • Habchi S, Hecht G, Rouvoy R, Moha N (2017) Code smells in ios apps: how do they compare to android?. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 4th international conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft), pp 110–121

  • Habchi S, Blanc X, Rouvoy R (2018) On adopting linters to deal with performance concerns in android apps. In: 2018 33rd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE), pp 6–16

  • Habchi S, Moha N, Rouvoy R (2019a) The rise of android code smells: Who is to blame?. In: 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th international conference on mining software repositories (MSR), pp 445–456

  • Habchi S, Rouvoy R, Moha N (2019b) On the survival of android code smells in the wild. In: 2019 IEEE/ACM 6th international conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft), pp 87–98

  • Hecht G (2016) Détection et analyse de l’impact des défauts de code dans les applications mobiles. (detection and analysis of impact of code smells in mobile applications). Ph.D. thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal

  • Hecht G, Rouvoy R, Moha N, Duchien L (2015) Detecting antipatterns in android apps. In: 2015 2nd ACM international conference on mobile software engineering and systems, pp 148–149

  • Iannone E, Pecorelli F, Nucci D D, Palomba F, Lucia A (2020) Refactoring android-specific energy smells: a plugin for android studio. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on program comprehension

  • Ibrahim R, Ahmed M, Nayak R, Jamel S (2020) Reducing redundancy of test cases generation using code smell detection and refactoring. J King Saud Univ—Comput Inf Sci 32(3):367–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B, Song Y, Murphy-Hill E R, Bowdidge R W (2013) Why don’t software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs?. In: 2013 35th International conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 672–681

  • Kessentini M, Ouni A (2017) Detecting android smells using multi-objective genetic programming. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 4th international conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft), pp 122–132

  • Kumar S, Chhabra J K (2014) Two level dynamic approach for feature envy detection. In: 2014 International conference on computer and communication technology (ICCCT), pp 41–46

  • Lim D (2018) Detecting code smells in android applications. Master’s thesis, TU Delft

  • Lin Y, Okur S (2015) Study and refactoring of android asynchronous programming

  • Malavolta I, Verdecchia R, Filipovic B, Bruntink M, Lago P (2018) How maintainability issues of android apps evolve. In: 2018 IEEE International conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME), pp 334–344

  • Mannan U A, Ahmed I, Almurshed R A M, Dig D, Jensen C (2016) Understanding code smells in android applications. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM International conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft), pp 225–236

  • Marinescu C, Marinescu R, Mihancea P F, Ratiu D, Wettel R (2005) iplasma: an integrated platform for quality assessment of object-oriented design. In: ICSM

  • Mariotti G (2013a) Antipattern: freezing a ui with broadcast receiver http://gmariotti.blogspot.ca/2013/02/antipattern-freezing-ui-with-broadcast.html. Online, Accessed May 2021

  • Mariotti G (2013b) Antipattern: freezing the ui with a service and an intentservice http://gmariotti.blogspot.com/2013/03/antipattern-freezing-ui-with-service.html. Online, Accessed: May 2021

  • Mariotti G (2013c) Antipattern: freezing the ui with an asynctask http://gmariotti.blogspot.com/2013/02/antipattern-freezing-ui-with-asynctask.html. Online, Accessed May 2021

  • Moha N, Guéhéneuc Y G, Duchien L, Meur A F L (2010) Decor: a method for the specification and detection of code and design smells. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 36:20–36

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Morales R, Saborido R, Khomh F, Chicano F, Antoniol G (2018) [journal first] earmo: an energy-aware refactoring approach for mobile apps. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 59–59

  • Ni-Lewis I (2015) Avoiding allocations in ondraw() (100 days of google dev) https://youtu.be/{HAK}5acHQ53e. Online, Accessed May 2021

  • Oracle (2020) Java thread primitive deprecation. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html. Online, Accessed: May 2021

  • Palomba F, Nucci D D, Panichella A, Zaidman A, Lucia A D (2017) Lightweight detection of android-specific code smells: The adoctor project. In: 2017 IEEE 24th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER), pp 487–491

  • Paternò F, Schiavone A G, Conte A (2017) Customizable automatic detection of bad usability smells in mobile accessed web applications. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services

  • Peruma A S (2018) What the smell? An empirical investigation on the distribution and severity of test smells in open source android applications

  • Rasool G, Ali A (2020) Recovering android bad smells from android applications. Arab J Sci Eng 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04365-1

  • Reimann J, Brylski M, Aßmann U (2014) A tool-supported quality smell catalogue for android developers. Softwaretechnik-Trends 34

  • Rubin J, Henniche A N, Moha N, Bouguessa M, Bousbia N (2019) Sniffing android code smells: an association rules mining-based approach. In: 2019 IEEE/ACM 6th international conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft), pp 123–127

  • Statista (2020) Number of apps available in leading app stores as of 1st quarter 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/. Online, Accessed May 2021

  • Statista (2020) Number of mobile app downloads worldwide from 2016 to 2019 https://www.statista.com/statistics/271644/worldwide-free-and-paid-mobile-app-store-downloads/. Online, Accessed May 2021

  • Study Artifacts (2021) https://figshare.com/s/8235a0575ff4a88f0deb. Online, Accessed: February 2022

  • Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson M C, Regnell B (2000) Experimentation in software engineering. In: The Kluwer international series in software engineering

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Dimitri Prestat, Naouel Moha & Roger Villemaire

  2. École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal, Canada

    Naouel Moha

Authors
  1. Dimitri Prestat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naouel Moha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger Villemaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitri Prestat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by: Tse-Hsun (Peter) Chen, Cor-Paul Bezemer, André van Hoorn, Catia Trubiani, Weiyi Shang

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Software Performance

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prestat, D., Moha, N. & Villemaire, R. An empirical study of Android behavioural code smells detection. Empir Software Eng 27, 179 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10212-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10212-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation