Release Suspicious Metrics Feature as stable

[ce-bo]

Feature request

Description

As a User of CC, I want to have the Suspicious Metrics feature as a stable one, so that I can use it in my analysises without enabling experimental features first.

Acceptance criteria

• A new How-To article explains the Suspicious Metrics feature.
• A new Subtitle in the Menu is shown that explains the feature like this: "This feature compares the values of different metrics with metric values of 241 Open Source Java projects. Based on this data suspicious and inconspicuous metrics are identified and corresponding suggestions can be clicked to view them. Be aware that metrics for other programming languages might not be comparable to Java Reference metric values. More information can be found here: LINK to How-To".
• Risk Profile should inform the user, that no Risk Profile could be created due to missing mcc metric. Currently the risk profile shows 0% in every risk class which is not correct.
• A new How-To article explains the Risk Profile Feature.
• A new Subtitle in the Menu is shown that explains the feature like this: "The Risk Profile gives a quick overview about the complexity and risk structure of the code base. It tells you how much of the code is placed in files associated with low/high risk in means of maintainability. The separation of code in risk classes like low or high complexity is based on Java reference metric values and therefore can be inaccurate for other programming languages. More information can be found here: LINK to How-To article."
• The feature is visible also outside of the experimental mode.
• There is a new button (like for the custom configs feature) to mark the released feature as "new". Ideally a TODO with a time constraint is added to remove the new icon in the future.

Assumptions & Exclusions

Please address the tasks as separate PRs to deliver value to the customer in an agile and fast way.

Open questions

• The features are based on recent work and a paper has been written in German. Should we publish the paper and link to them? Not at the moment.

[ce-bo]

It might be good, that I am going to add the descriptions about the scientific basics of the two features because I was working on that.

[ce-bo]

Resolved by #3197