nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.10.2013

Studying re-opened bugs in open source software

verfasst von: Emad Shihab, Akinori Ihara, Yasutaka Kamei, Walid M. Ibrahim, Masao Ohira, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan, Ken-ichi Matsumoto

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 5/2013

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Bug fixing accounts for a large amount of the software maintenance resources. Generally, bugs are reported, fixed, verified and closed. However, in some cases bugs have to be re-opened. Re-opened bugs increase maintenance costs, degrade the overall user-perceived quality of the software and lead to unnecessary rework by busy practitioners. In this paper, we study and predict re-opened bugs through a case study on three large open source projects—namely Eclipse, Apache and OpenOffice. We structure our study along four dimensions: (1) the work habits dimension (e.g., the weekday on which the bug was initially closed), (2) the bug report dimension (e.g., the component in which the bug was found) (3) the bug fix dimension (e.g., the amount of time it took to perform the initial fix) and (4) the team dimension (e.g., the experience of the bug fixer). We build decision trees using the aforementioned factors that aim to predict re-opened bugs. We perform top node analysis to determine which factors are the most important indicators of whether or not a bug will be re-opened. Our study shows that the comment text and last status of the bug when it is initially closed are the most important factors related to whether or not a bug will be re-opened. Using a combination of these dimensions, we can build explainable prediction models that can achieve a precision between 52.1–78.6 % and a recall in the range of 70.5–94.1 % when predicting whether a bug will be re-opened. We find that the factors that best indicate which bugs might be re-opened vary based on the project. The comment text is the most important factor for the Eclipse and OpenOffice projects, while the last status is the most important one for Apache. These factors should be closely examined in order to reduce maintenance cost due to re-opened bugs.

Vorheriger Artikel On the impact of software evolution on software clustering

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

For example, in some cases developers discover a bug and know how to fix it, however they create a bug report and assign it to themselves for book-keeping purposes.

For re-opened bugs, we used all the comments posted before the bugs were re-opened.

Anbalagan P, Vouk M (2009) “Days of the week” effect in predicting the time taken to fix defects. In: DEFECTS ’09: proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on defects in large software systems, pp 29–30

Androutsopoulos I, Koutsias J, Cb KV, Spyropoulos CD (2000) An experimental comparison of Naive Bayesian and keyword-based anti-spam filtering with personal e-mail messages. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp 160–167

Antoniol G, Ayari K, Di Penta M, Khomh F, Guéhéneuc Y (2008) Is it a bug or an enhancement?: a text-based approach to classify change requests. In: CASCON ’08: proceedings of the 2008 conference of the center for advanced studies on collaborative research: meeting of minds, pp 304–318

Anvik J, Hiew L, Murphy GC (2006) Who should fix this bug? In: ICSE’06: proceedings of the 28th international conference on software engineering, pp 361–370

Aranda J, Venolia G (2009) The secret life of bugs: going past the errors and omissions in software repositories. In: ICSE ’09: proceedings of the 31st international conference on software engineering, pp 298–308

Barandela R, Sánchez JS, García V, Rangel E (2003) Strategies for learning in class imbalance problems. Pattern Recogn 36(3):849–851CrossRef

Bettenburg N, Just S, Schröter A, Weiss C, Premraj R, Zimmermann T (2008a) What makes a good bug report? In: SIGSOFT ’08/FSE-16: proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, pp 308–318

Bettenburg N, Premraj R, Zimmermann T, Kim S (2008b) Duplicate bug reports considered harmful really? In: ICSM ’08: proceedings of international conference on software maintenance, pp 337–345

Bird C, Bachmann A, Aune E, Duffy J, Bernstein A, Filkov V, Devanbu P (2009a) Fair and balanced? Bias in bug-fix datasets. In: ESEC/FSE’09: proceedings of the the seventh joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, pp 121–130

Bird C, Nagappan N, Devanbu P, Gall H, Murphy B (2009b) Does distributed development affect software quality? An empirical case study of windows vista. In: ICSE ’09: proceedings of the 31st international conference on software engineering, pp 518–528

Cataldo M, Mockus A, Roberts JA, Herbsleb JD (2009) Software dependencies, work dependencies, and their impact on failures. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 99(6):864–878CrossRef

Chan P, Stolfo SJ (1998) Toward scalable learning with non-uniform class and cost distributions: a case study in credit card fraud detection. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 164–168

D’Ambros M, Lanza M, Robbes R (2009) On the relationship between change coupling and software defects. Working conference on reverse engineering, pp 135–144

Efron B (1983) Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 78(382):316–331MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

Erlikh L (2000) Leveraging legacy system dollars for e-business. IT Prof 2(3):17–23CrossRef

Estabrooks A, Japkowicz N (2001) A mixture-of-experts framework for learning from imbalanced data sets. In: IDA ’01: proceedings of the 4th international conference on advances in intelligent data analysis, pp 34–43

Eyolfson J, Tan L, Lam P (2008) Do time of day and developer experience affect commit bugginess? In: MSR ’11: proceedings of the 8th working conference on mining software repositories, pp 153–162

Fischer M, Pinzger M, Gall H (2003) Populating a release history database from version control and bug tracking systems. In: ICSM’03: proceedings of the international conference on software maintenance, pp 23–32

Freund Y, Schapire RE (1995) A decision-theoretic generalization of online learning and an application to boosting. In: Second European conf. on computational learning theory (EuroCOLT), pp 23–37

Graham P (2002) A plan for spam. http://paulgraham.com/spam.html. Accessed Mar 2012

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

Guo PJ, Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Murphy B (2010) Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: an empirical study of Microsoft Windows. In: ICSE ’10: proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE international conference on software engineering, vol 1, pp 495–504

Hassan AE (2009) Predicting faults using the complexity of code changes. In: ICSE ’09: proceedings of the 2009 IEEE 31st international conference on software engineering, pp 78–88

Hassan AE, Zhang K (2006) Using decision trees to predict the certification result of a build. In: ASE ’06: proceedings of the 21st IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, pp 189–198

Herraiz I, German DM, Gonzalez-Barahona JM, Robles G (2008) Towards a simplification of the bug report form in eclipse. In: MSR ’08: proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on mining software repositories, pp 145–148

Hewett R, Kijsanayothin P (2009) On modeling software defect repair time. Empir Software Eng 14(2):165–186CrossRef

Hooimeijer P, Weimer W (2007) Modeling bug report quality. In: ASE ’07: proceedings of the twenty-second IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, pp 34–43

Ibrahim WM, Bettenburg N, Shihab E, Adams B, Hassan AE (2010) Should I contribute to this discussion? In: MSR ’10: proceedings of the 2010 international working conference on mining software repositories

Jeong G, Kim S, Zimmermann T (2009) Improving bug triage with bug tossing graphs. In: ESEC/FSE ’09: proceedings of the the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering, pp 111–120

Kim S, Whitehead EJ Jr (2006) How long did it take to fix bugs? In: MSR ’06: proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on mining software repositories, pp 173–174

Kim S, James Whitehead JE, Zhang Y (2008) Classifying software changes: clean or buggy? IEEE Trans Softw Eng 34:181–196CrossRef

Lamkanfi A, Demeyer S, Giger E, Goethals B (2010) Predicting the severity of a reported bug. In: ICSE ’06: proceedings of the IEEE working conference on mining software repositories, pp 1–10

Lee T, Nam J, Han D, Kim S, In H (2011) Micro interaction metrics for defect prediction. In: ESEC/FSE ’11: proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on foundations of software engineering, pp 311–321

Menzies T, Dekhtyar A, Distefano J, Greenwald J 2007 Problems with precision: a response to comments on data mining static code attributes to learn defect predictors. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33:637–640CrossRef

Meyer TA, Whateley B (2004) SpamBayes: effective open-source, Bayesian based, email classification system. In: Proceedings of the first conference on email and anti-spam

Michelakis E, Androutsopoulos I, Paliouras G, Sakkis G, Stamatopoulos P (2004) Filtron: a learning-based anti-spam filter. In: Proceedings of the 1st conference on email and anti-spam

Mizuno O, Hata H (2010) An integrated approach to detect fault-prone modules using complexity and text feature metrics. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on advances in computer science and information technology, pp 457–568

Mizuno O, Ikami S, Nakaichi S, Kikuno T (2007) Spam filter based approach for finding fault-prone software modules. In: MSR’07: proceedings of the fourth international workshop on mining software repositories, pp 4–8

Mockus A (2010) Organizational volatility and its effects on software defects. In: FSE ’10: proceedings of the eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, pp 117–126

Mockus A, Fielding RT, Herbsleb JD (2002) Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 11(3):309–346CrossRef

Moser R, Pedrycz W, Succi G (2008) A comparative analysis of the efficiency of change metrics and static code attributes for defect prediction. In: ICSE ’08: proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering, pp 181–190

Nagappan N, Murphy B, Basili V (2008) The influence of organizational structure on software quality: an empirical case study. In: ICSE ’08: proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering, pp 521–530

Panjer LD (2007) Predicting eclipse bug lifetimes. In: MSR ’07: proceedings of the fourth international workshop on mining software repositories, p 29

Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc

Sánchez JS, Barandela R, Marqués AI, Alejo R (2001) Performance evaluation of prototype selection algorithms for nearest neighbor classification. In: SIBGRAPI ’01: proceedings of the XIV Brazilian symposium on computer graphics and image processing, p 44

Sayyad J, Lethbridge C (2001) Supporting software maintenance by mining software update records. In: ICSM ’01: proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’01), p 22

Schröter A, Zimmermann T, Premraj R, Zeller A (2006) If your bug database could talk.... In: ISESE ’06: proceedings of the 5th international symposium on empirical software engineering. Volume II: short papers and posters, pp 18–20

Shang W, Jiang ZM, Adams B, Hassan AE (2009) Mapreduce as a general framework to support research in mining software repositories (MSR). In: MSR ’09: proceedings of the fourth international workshop on mining software repositories, p 10

Shihab E, Ihara A, Kamei Y, Ibrahim WM, Ohira M, Adams B, Hassan AE, Matsumoto K (2010) Predicting re-opened bugs: a case study on the eclipse project. In: WCRE’10: proceedings of the 17th working conference on reverse engineering, pp 249–258

Shihab E, Mockus A, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2011) High-impact defects: a study of breakage and surprise defects. In: ESEC/FSE ’11: proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on foundations of software engineering, pp 300–310

Śliwerski J, Zimmermann T, Zeller A (2005) When do changes induce fixes? In: MSR ’05: proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on mining software repositories, pp 1–5

Weiss C, Premraj R, Zimmermann T, Zeller A (2007) How long will it take to fix this bug? In: MSR ’07: proceedings of the fourth international workshop on mining software repositories, p 1

Witten IH, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc

Zimmermann T, Premraj R, Zeller A (2007) Predicting defects for eclipse. In: PROMISE ’07: proceedings of the third international workshop on predictor models in software engineering, p 9

Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Guo PJ, Murphy B (2012) Characterizing and predicting which bugs get reopened. In: ICSE ’12: proceedings of the 34th international conference on software engineering, pp 495–504

Titel: Studying re-opened bugs in open source software
verfasst von: Emad Shihab
Akinori Ihara
Yasutaka Kamei
Walid M. Ibrahim
Masao Ohira
Bram Adams
Ahmed E. Hassan
Ken-ichi Matsumoto
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9228-6

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 5/2013

On the impact of software evolution on software clustering

Guest editorial: reverse engineering

Integrating conceptual and logical couplings for change impact analysis in software

What your plug-in test suites really test: an integration perspective on test suite understanding

Using structural and semantic measures to improve software modularization

Premium Partner