nach oben

Empirical Software Engineering

Erschienen in:

01.04.2016

Studying high impact fix-inducing changes

verfasst von: Ayse Tosun Misirli, Emad Shihab, Yasukata Kamei

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

As software systems continue to play an important role in our daily lives, their quality is of paramount importance. Therefore, a plethora of prior research has focused on predicting components of software that are defect-prone. One aspect of this research focuses on predicting software changes that are fix-inducing. Although the prior research on fix-inducing changes has many advantages in terms of highly accurate results, it has one main drawback: It gives the same level of impact to all fix-inducing changes. We argue that treating all fix-inducing changes the same is not ideal, since a small typo in a change is easier to address by a developer than a thread synchronization issue. Therefore, in this paper, we study high impact fix-inducing changes (HIFCs). Since the impact of a change can be measured in different ways, we first propose a measure of impact of the fix-inducing changes, which takes into account the implementation work that needs to be done by developers in later (fixing) changes. Our measure of impact for a fix-inducing change uses the amount of churn, the number of files and the number of subsystems modified by developers during an associated fix of the fix-inducing change. We perform our study using six large open source projects to build specialized models that identify HIFCs, determine the best indicators of HIFCs and examine the benefits of prioritizing HIFCs. Using change factors, we are able to predict 56 % to 77 % of HIFCs with an average false alarm (misclassification) rate of 16 %. We find that the lines of code added, the number of developers who worked on a change, and the number of prior modifications on the files modified during a change are the best indicators of HIFCs. Lastly, we observe that a specialized model for HIFCs can provide inspection effort savings of 4 % over the state-of-the-art models. We believe our results would help practitioners prioritize their efforts towards the most impactful fix-inducing changes and save inspection effort.

Vorheriger Artikel Automatic identifier inconsistency detection using code dictionary

Nächster Artikel From Aristotle to Ringelmann: a large-scale analysis of team productivity and coordination in Open Source Software projects

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

git clone git://git.gnome.org/gimp

git clone git://git.apache.org/maven-2.git

git clone gitclonegit://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git

git clone git://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git

git clone github.com/rails/rails.git

git clone github.com/mozilla/rhino.git

Arisholm E, Briand LC (2006) Predicting fault-prone components in a Java legacy system. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), pp 8–17

Bachmann A, Bird C, Rahman F, Devanbu P, Bernstein A (2010) The missing links: Bugs and bug-fix commits. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE ’10, pp 97–106

Basili VR, Briand LC, Melo WL (1996) A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(10):751–761

Bird C, Bachmann A, Aune E, Duffy J, Bernstein A, Filkov V, Devanbu P (2009) Fair and balanced? Bias in bug-fix datasets. In: European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE

Boehm B, Basili VR (2005) Software defect reduction top 10 list. Foundations of empirical software engineering: the legacy of Victor R Basili 426

Bradley P, Fayyad U, Reina C (1999) Scaling em (expectation-maximization) clustering to large databases. Technical Report, Microsoft Research, MSR-TR-98-35

Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach learn 45:5–32CrossRefMATH

Caglayan B, Misirli AT, Miranskyy AV, Turhan B, Bener A (2012) Factors characterizing reopened issues: a case study. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE), pp 1–10

Caglayan B, Tosun A, Miranskyy A, Bener A, Ruffolo N (2010) Usage of multiple prediction models based on defect categories. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE), pp 8:1–8:9

Chidamber SR, Kemerer CF (1994) A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(6):476–493. doi:10.1109/32.295895 CrossRef

Czerwonka J, Das R, Nagappan N, Tarvo A, Teterev A (2011) Crane: Failure prediction, change analysis and test prioritization in practice – experiences from windows. In: Proceedings of Int’l Confernce on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pp 357–366

D’Ambros M, Lanza M, Robbes R (2010) An extensive comparison of bug prediction approaches. In: Proceedings of Int’l Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 31–41

Estabrooks A, Japkowicz N (2001) A mixture-of-experts framework for learning from imbalanced data sets. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis (IDA), pp 34– 43

Eyolfson J, Tan L, Lam P (2011) Do time of day and developer experience affect commit bugginess. In: Proceedings of Int’l Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 153– 162

Fraley C, Raftery A, Murphy B, Scrucca L (2012) mclust version 4 for R: Normal mixture modeling for model-based clustering, classification, and density estimation. Technical Report, Department of Statistics. University of Washington

Gall J, Razavi N, Van Gool L (2012) An introduction to random forests for multi-class object detection. In: sProceedings of Int’l Conference on Theoretical Foundations of Computer Vision: outdoor and large-scale real-world scene analysis, pp 243–263

Gethers M, Dit B, Kagdi H, Poshyvanyk D (2012) Integrated impact analysis for managing software changes. In: International Conference on Software Engineering

Giger E, D’Ambros M, Pinzger M, Gall HC (2012) Method-level bug prediction. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’12, pp 171–180

Giger E, Pinzger M, Gall H (2012) Can we predict types of code changes? An empirical analysis. In: Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2012 9th IEEE Working Conference on, pp 217– 226

Graves TL, Karr AF, Marron JS, Siy H (2000) Predicting fault incidence using software change history. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(7):653–661

Guo PJ, Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Murphy B (2010) Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: An empirical study of microsoft windows. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 495–504

Halstead M (1977) Elements of Software Science. Elsevier North-Holland, Amsterdam

Hassan AE (2009) Predicting faults using the complexity of code changes. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 78–88

Hata H, Mizuno O, Kikuno T (2012) Bug prediction based on fine-grained module histories. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, pp 200–210

Herraiz I, Gonzalez-Barahona JM, Robles G (2007) Towards a theoretical model for software growth. In: Proceedings of Int’l Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), p 21

Herzig K, Just S, Rau A, Zeller A (2013) Predicting defects using change genealogies. In: Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), 2013 IEEE 24th International Symposium on, pp 118– 127. IEEE

Jiang Y, Cukic B, Menzies T (2008) Can data transformation help in the detection of fault-prone modules. In: Proceedings of Int’l Workshop on Defects in Large Software Systems (DEFECTS), pp 16–20

Kamei Y, Monden A, Morisaki S, Matsumoto KI (2008) A hybrid faulty module prediction using association rule mining and logistic regression analysis. In: Proceedings of Int’l Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (EMSE), pp 279–281

Kamei Y, Shihab E, Adams B, Hassan AE, Mockus A, Sinha A, Ubayashi N (2013) A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 39(6):757–773CrossRef

Kawrykow D, Robillard MP (2011) Non-essential changes in version histories. In: ICSE, pp 351– 360

Kim S, Ernst MD (2007) Which warnings should I fix first? In: Proceedings of the the 6th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering, pp 45–54. ACM

Kim S, Whitehead Jr. EJ, Zhang Y (2008) Classifying software changes: Clean or buggy. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 34(2):181–196CrossRef

Kim S, Zimmermann T, Pan K, Whitehead EJ (2006) Automatic identification of bug-introducing changes. In: Automated Software Engineering, 2006. ASE’06. 21st IEEE/ACM International Conference on, pp 81–90. IEEE

Lehnert S (2011) A review of software change impact analysis. Technical Report, Technische Universität Ilmenau

Leszak M, Perry DE, Stoll D (2002) Classification and evaluation of defects in a project retrospective. J Syst Softw 61(3):173–187CrossRef

Li B, Sun X, Leung H, Zhang S (2013) A survey of code-based change impact analysis techniques. Soft Test Verification Reliab 23:613–646CrossRef

Liaw A, Wiener M (2013) randomforest: Breiman and cutler’s random forests for classification and regression. Online: cran.r-project.org/web/packages/randomForest/index.html

Madhavan JT, Whitehead EJ (2007) Predicting buggy changes inside an integrated development environment. In: Proceedings of the 2007 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange, pp 36–40. ACM

Matsumoto S, Kamei Y, Monden A, Matsumoto K, Nakamura M (2010) An analysis of developer metrics for fault prediction. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE), pp 18:1–18:9

McCabe TJ (1976) A complexity measure. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), p 407

Mende T, Koschke R (2010) Effort-aware defect prediction models. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), pp 107–116

Menzies T, Turhan B, Bener A, Gay G, Cukic B, Jiang Y (2008) Implications of ceiling effects in defect predictors. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE), pp 47–54

Misirli AT, Caglayan B, Bener A, Turhan B (2013) A retrospective study of software analytics projects: In-depth interviews with practitioners. IEEE Soft 30:54–61CrossRef

Misirli AT, Caglayan B, Miranskyy A, Bener A, Ruffolo N (2011) Different strokes for different folks: A case study on software metrics for different defect categories. In: Proceedings of Int’l Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics (WETSOM)

Mockus A, Weiss DM (2000) Predicting risk of software changes. Bell Labs Tech J 5(2):169–180CrossRef

Moser R, Pedrycz W, Succi G (2008) A comparative analysis of the efficiency of change metrics and static code attributes for defect prediction. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 181–190

Nagappan N, Ball T (2005) Static analysis tools as early indicators of pre-release defect density. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 580–586

Nagappan N, Ball T (2005) Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 284–292

Nagappan N, Ball T, Zeller A (2006) Mining metrics to predict component failures. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 452–461

Ohlsson N, Alberg H (1996) Predicting fault-prone software modules in telephone switches. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(12):886–894CrossRef

Ostrand TJ, Weyuker EJ, Bell RM (2010) Programmer-based fault prediction. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE), pp 19:1–19:10

Purushothaman R, Perry D (2005) Toward understanding the rhetoric of small source code changes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(6):511–526CrossRef

Ren X, Shah F, Tip F, Ryder BG, Chesley O (2004) Chianti: A tool for change impact analysis of java programs. In: OOPSLA. Vancouver, Canada

Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D (2002) Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Generilized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Shihab E (2011) Pragmatic prioritization of software quality assurance efforts. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 1106–1109

Shihab E, Hassan AE, Adams B, Jiang ZM (2012) An industrial study on the risk of software changes. In: Proceedings of Int’l Sym. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp 62:1–62:11

Shihab E, Ihara A, Kamei Y, Ibrahim W, Ohira M, Adams B, Hassan A, Matsumoto KI (2010) Predicting re-opened bugs: A case study on the eclipse project, pp 249–258

Shihab E, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2013) Is lines of code a good measure of effort in effort-aware models Inf Softw Technol 55(11):1981–1993CrossRef

Shihab E, Mockus A, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2011) High-impact defects: a study of breakage and surprise defects. In: Proceedings of Sym. and European Conf. on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC-FSE), pp 300–310

Shin Y, Meneely A, Williams L, Osborne JA (2011) Evaluating complexity, code churn, and developer activity metrics as indicators of software vulnerabilities. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 37(6):772–787CrossRef

Śliwerski J, Zimmermann T, Zeller A (2005) When do changes induce fixes? In: Proceedings of Int’l Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 1–5

Thung F, Wang S, Lo D, Jiang L (2012) An empirical study of bugs in machine learning systems. In: Proceedings of Int’l Sym. on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), pp 271–280

Tosun A, Bener A (2009) Reducing false alarms in software defect prediction by decision threshold optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’09, pp. 477–480. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA. doi:10.1109/ESEM.2009.5316006

Tosun A, Bener AB, Turhan B, Menzies T (2010) Practical considerations in deploying statistical methods for defect prediction: A case study within the turkish telecommunications industry. Inf Softw Technol 52(11):1242–1257CrossRef

Yin Z, Yuan D, Zhou Y, Pasupathy S, Bairavasundaram L (2011) How do fixes become bugs? In: Proceedings of Sym. and European Conf. on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC-FSE), pp 26–36

Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Williams L (2010) Searching for a needle in a haystack: Predicting security vulnerabilities for windows vista. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST)

Zimmermann T, Premraj R, Zeller A (2007) Predicting defects for Eclipse. In: Proceedings of Int’l Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE), pp 9–15

Zimmermann T, Weisgerber P, Diehl S, Zeller A (2004) Mining version histories to guide software changes. In: Proceedings Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 563–572

Titel: Studying high impact fix-inducing changes
verfasst von: Ayse Tosun Misirli
Emad Shihab
Yasukata Kamei
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-015-9370-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Open innovation in software engineering: a systematic mapping study

Guest editorial: Special section on mining software repositories

The impact of tangled code changes on defect prediction models

Improving bug management using correlations in crash reports

Development nature matters: An empirical study of code clones in JavaScript applications

From Aristotle to Ringelmann: a large-scale analysis of team productivity and coordination in Open Source Software projects

Premium Partner