You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The upper bound of the CCM metric is at 0.5 level. In our opinion, this is not due to a low metric value, but to an error in an implementation of the metric, in the formula CCM(C)=NC(C)/(NMP(C) NCC(C))
where NC – the number of connections, NCC – the number of connection components, NMP – the number of maximum possible connections. However, jPeek for the NCC counts the number of related methods, which is why a maximum score will be 0.5, in this case.
For an example, to test the hypothesis, let us implement a class with three interconnected methods. According to the CCM definition, this class has one connectivity component, but jPeek supposed that there are three ones.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The upper bound of the CCM metric is at 0.5 level. In our opinion, this is not due to a low metric value, but to an error in an implementation of the metric, in the formula CCM(C)=NC(C)/(NMP(C) NCC(C))
where NC – the number of connections, NCC – the number of connection components, NMP – the number of maximum possible connections. However, jPeek for the NCC counts the number of related methods, which is why a maximum score will be 0.5, in this case.
For an example, to test the hypothesis, let us implement a class with three interconnected methods. According to the CCM definition, this class has one connectivity component, but jPeek supposed that there are three ones.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: