Using Static Analysis for Improving Maintainability CTAL-TTA Practice Questions (Page 3)

Questions 11–15

1. 11foundation · medium

   A team wants to use static analysis to improve the maintainability of their legacy codebase. Which approach best aligns with this goal?

   • AIntegrate static analysis into the build process and review findings during code reviews
   • BUse static analysis to automatically fix all identified maintainability issues
   • CRun the static analysis tool only once at the end of the project to document issues
   • DConfigure the tool to focus only on performance metrics, ignoring structural issues
   Reveal Solution Discussion Select an answer first
2. 12application · medium

   A static analysis tool reports a 'shotgun surgery' smell: a small change in one class requires many small changes across several other classes. The team wants to improve maintainability. Which refactoring approach is most appropriate?

   • AConsolidate the scattered changes into a single class or method.
   • BIncrease the number of classes to distribute the changes more evenly.
   • CAdd a configuration file to control the changes at runtime.
   • DUse inheritance to share the changed code across classes.
   Reveal Solution Discussion Select an answer first
4. 13application · medium

   A team is evaluating two candidate classes for refactoring. Class A has high cohesion and low coupling. Class B has low cohesion and high coupling. Which class should be prioritized for maintainability improvement?

   • ABoth equally, because all classes should be refactored to the same standard.
   • BClass B, because low cohesion and high coupling make it harder to understand and modify.
   • CClass A, because high cohesion and low coupling indicate it is already well-designed and should be preserved.
   • DNeither, because static analysis metrics are not reliable for prioritizing refactoring.
   Reveal Solution Discussion Select an answer first
5. 14expert · hard

   A team uses a static analysis tool that reports a high number of 'magic number' warnings. The team is debating whether to replace all magic numbers with named constants. The codebase is stable and rarely changes. What is the most appropriate decision?

   • AIgnore the warnings because the codebase is stable.
   • BReplace all magic numbers now to eliminate the warnings.
   • CReplace magic numbers only in modules that are likely to change in the near future.
   • DIncrease the tool's threshold to suppress magic number warnings.
   Reveal Solution Discussion Select an answer first
6. 15expert · hard

   A static analysis report shows that Module X has high cohesion but also high coupling. Module Y has low cohesion but low coupling. The team can refactor only one module. Which module should be prioritized and why?

   • AModule X, because high coupling makes it more fragile to changes in other modules.
   • BNeither, because static analysis metrics are insufficient to make this decision.
   • CModule Y, because low cohesion is always worse than high coupling.
   • DBoth equally, because each has one good and one bad metric.
   Reveal Solution Discussion Select an answer first