Hi,

not really, mainly because the projects we have are not all at that level of abstraction: analyzing a big class to cut it into pieces is not the same thing as understanding a big system as a whole.

But we are indeed interested in what your students may have to propose :-)

nicolas

Hi Nicolas,

On 15 Feb 2017, at 12:00, moose-dev-request@list.inf.unibe.ch wrote:

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:10:54 +0100
From: Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil@inria.fr>
To: Moose-related development <moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch>
Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: software reingineering guidelines
Message-ID: <f856fa35-917e-0a5a-a84c-41d89ebe83ac@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Hi Abdou,

not that I know of.
Moose provides the tools, the engineers must provide the "intelligence", 
the processus to extract needed informatino.

We currently have a project with Master students along these lines, but 
they did not deliver it yet, so no experience result yet neither.

I was thinking that people from Synectic (for instance) could have some valuable experience in this field (where to start from, a list of what to look for, how to look for it, the different reports, …)

We recommended using Roassal (and explained how to use it) to try to get 
an understanding of the “architecture”

Yes, and use the queries to gets different metrics about the projects. maybe detect some (anti) patterns...

Actually, asking them to explain HOW they got their results (As well as 
WHAT results they got) could be interesting

Definitely, this is part of the objectives too :)

Maybe we could produce a sorte of practical guide to code analysis with Moose.

nicolas

-- 
Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR)
Project-Team RMod