arXiv subjects

Andy Zaidman

Publications and source records attributed to Andy Zaidman.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2019

Do as I Do, Not as I Say: Do Contribution Guidelines Match the GitHub Contribution Process?

Developer contribution guidelines are used in social coding sites like GitHub to explain and shape the process a project expects contributors to follow. They set standards for all participants and "save time and hassle caused by improperly created pull requests or issues that have to be rejected and resubmitted" (GitHub). Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of the content of a typical contribution guideline, as well as the extent to which these guidelines are followed in practice. Additionally, understanding how guidelines may impact projects that use Continuous Integration as part of the contribution process is of particular interest. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study of 53 GitHub projects with explicit contribution guidelines and coded the guidelines to extract key themes. We then created a process model using GitHub activity data (e.g., commit, new issue, new pull request) to compare the actual activity with the prescribed contribution guidelines. We show that approximately 68% of these projects diverge significantly from the expected process.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

Not All Bugs Are the Same: Understanding, Characterizing, and Classifying the Root Cause of Bugs

Modern version control systems such as Git or SVN include bug tracking mechanisms, through which developers can highlight the presence of bugs through bug reports, i.e., textual descriptions reporting the problem and what are the steps that led to a failure. In past and recent years, the research community deeply investigated methods for easing bug triage, that is, the process of assigning the fixing of a reported bug to the most qualified developer. Nevertheless, only a few studies have reported on how to support developers in the process of understanding the type of a reported bug, which is the first and most time-consuming step to perform before assigning a bug-fix operation. In this paper, we target this problem in two ways: first, we analyze 1,280 bug reports of 119 popular projects belonging to three ecosystems such as Mozilla, Apache, and Eclipse, with the aim of building a taxonomy of the root causes of reported bugs; then, we devise and evaluate an automated classification model able to classify reported bugs according to the defined taxonomy. As a result, we found nine main common root causes of bugs over the considered systems. Moreover, our model achieves high F-Measure and AUC-ROC (64% and 74% on overall, respectively).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

Improving Change Prediction Models with Code Smell-Related Information

Code smells represent sub-optimal implementation choices applied by developers when evolving software systems. The negative impact of code smells has been widely investigated in the past: besides developers' productivity and ability to comprehend source code, researchers empirically showed that the presence of code smells heavily impacts the change-proneness of the affected classes. On the basis of these findings, in this paper we conjecture that code smell-related information can be effectively exploited to improve the performance of change prediction models, ie models having as goal that of indicating to developers which classes are more likely to change in the future, so that they may apply preventive maintenance actions. Specifically, we exploit the so-called intensity index - a previously defined metric that captures the severity of a code smell - and evaluate its contribution when added as additional feature in the context of three state of the art change prediction models based on product, process, and developer-based features. We also compare the performance achieved by the proposed model with the one of an alternative technique that considers the previously defined antipattern metrics, namely a set of indicators computed considering the history of code smells in files. Our results report that (i) the prediction performance of the intensity-including models is statistically better than that of the baselines and (ii) the intensity is a more powerful metric with respect to the alternative smell-related ones.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2018

Automatic Quality Assurance and Release (Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 18122)

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 18122 "Automatic Quality Assurance and Release". The main goal of this seminar was to bridge the knowledge divide on how researchers and industry professionals reason about and implement DevOps for automatic quality assurance. Through the seminar, we have built up a common understanding of DevOps tools and practices, but we have also identified major academic and educational challenges for this field of research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2014

Web API Fragility: How Robust is Your Web API Client

Web APIs provide a systematic and extensible approach for application-to-application interaction. A large number of mobile applications makes use of web APIs to integrate services into apps. Each Web API's evolution pace is determined by their respective developer and mobile application developers are forced to accompany the API providers in their software evolution tasks. In this paper we investigate whether mobile application developers understand and how they deal with the added distress of web APIs evolving. In particular, we studied how robust 48 high profile mobile applications are when dealing with mutated web API responses. Additionally, we interviewed three mobile application developers to better understand their choices and trade-offs regarding web API integration.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2014

A Quality Framework for Agile Requirements: A Practitioner's Perspective

Verification activities are necessary to ensure that the requirements are specified in a correct way. However, until now requirements verification research has focused on traditional up-front requirements. Agile or just-in-time requirements are by definition incomplete, not specific and might be ambiguous when initially specified, indicating a different notion of 'correctness'. We analyze how verification of agile requirements quality should be performed, based on literature of traditional and agile requirements. This leads to an agile quality framework, instantiated for the specific requirement types of feature requests in open source projects and user stories in agile projects. We have performed an initial qualitative validation of our framework for feature requests with eight practitioners from the Dutch agile community, receiving overall positive feedback.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2007

On How Developers Test Open Source Software Systems

Engineering software systems is a multidisciplinary activity, whereby a number of artifacts must be created - and maintained - synchronously. In this paper we investigate whether production code and the accompanying tests co-evolve by exploring a project's versioning system, code coverage reports and size-metrics. Three open source case studies teach us that testing activities usually start later on during the lifetime and are more "phased", although we did not observe increasing testing activity before releases. Furthermore, we note large differences in the levels of test coverage given the proportion of test code.

cs.SE↗