补充Bug修复vs.重新打开的Bug

Le An, Foutse Khomh, Bram Adams
{"title":"补充Bug修复vs.重新打开的Bug","authors":"Le An, Foutse Khomh, Bram Adams","doi":"10.1109/SCAM.2014.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A typical bug fixing cycle involves the reporting of a bug, the triaging of the report, the production and verification of a fix, and the closing of the bug. However, previous work has studied two phenomena where more than one fix are associated with the same bug report. The first one is the case where developers re-open a previously fixed bug in the bug repository (sometimes even multiple times) to provide a new bug fix that replace a previous fix, whereas the second one is the case where multiple commits in the version control system contribute to the same bug report (\"supplementary bug fixes\"). Even though both phenomena seem related, they have never been studied together, i.e., are supplementary fixes a subset of re-opened bugs or the other way around? This paper investigates the interplay between both phenomena in five open source software projects: Mozilla, Net beans, Eclipse JDT Core, Eclipse Platform SWT, and Web Kit. We found that re-opened bugs account for between 21.6% and 33.8% of all supplementary fixes. However, 33% to 57.5% of re-opened bugs had only one commit associated, which means that the original bug report was prematurely closed instead of fixed incorrectly. Furthermore, we constructed predictive models for re-opened bugs using historical information about supplementary bug fixes with a precision between 72.2% and 97%, as well as a recall between 47.7% and 65.3%. Software researchers and practitioners who are mining data repositories can use our approach to identify potential failures of their bug fixes and the re-opening of bug reports.","PeriodicalId":407060,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation","volume":"1096 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supplementary Bug Fixes vs. Re-opened Bugs\",\"authors\":\"Le An, Foutse Khomh, Bram Adams\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SCAM.2014.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A typical bug fixing cycle involves the reporting of a bug, the triaging of the report, the production and verification of a fix, and the closing of the bug. However, previous work has studied two phenomena where more than one fix are associated with the same bug report. The first one is the case where developers re-open a previously fixed bug in the bug repository (sometimes even multiple times) to provide a new bug fix that replace a previous fix, whereas the second one is the case where multiple commits in the version control system contribute to the same bug report (\\\"supplementary bug fixes\\\"). Even though both phenomena seem related, they have never been studied together, i.e., are supplementary fixes a subset of re-opened bugs or the other way around? This paper investigates the interplay between both phenomena in five open source software projects: Mozilla, Net beans, Eclipse JDT Core, Eclipse Platform SWT, and Web Kit. We found that re-opened bugs account for between 21.6% and 33.8% of all supplementary fixes. However, 33% to 57.5% of re-opened bugs had only one commit associated, which means that the original bug report was prematurely closed instead of fixed incorrectly. Furthermore, we constructed predictive models for re-opened bugs using historical information about supplementary bug fixes with a precision between 72.2% and 97%, as well as a recall between 47.7% and 65.3%. Software researchers and practitioners who are mining data repositories can use our approach to identify potential failures of their bug fixes and the re-opening of bug reports.\",\"PeriodicalId\":407060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation\",\"volume\":\"1096 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SCAM.2014.29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SCAM.2014.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

典型的错误修复周期包括报告错误、对报告进行分类、生成和验证修复以及关闭错误。然而,以前的工作已经研究了两个现象,即多个修复与同一个错误报告相关联。第一种情况是开发人员重新打开错误存储库中先前修复的错误(有时甚至多次),以提供取代先前修复的新错误修复,而第二种情况是版本控制系统中的多次提交对相同的错误报告做出贡献(“补充错误修复”)。尽管这两种现象似乎是相关的,但它们从未被一起研究过,也就是说,补充修复是重新打开的错误的子集还是相反?本文研究了五个开源软件项目中这两种现象之间的相互作用:Mozilla、Net beans、Eclipse JDT Core、Eclipse Platform SWT和Web Kit。我们发现重新打开的bug占所有补充修复的21.6%到33.8%。然而,33%到57.5%的重新打开的bug只有一个相关的提交,这意味着原始的bug报告是过早关闭的,而不是错误地修复了。此外,我们利用补充bug修复的历史信息构建了重新打开bug的预测模型,准确率在72.2% ~ 97%之间,召回率在47.7% ~ 65.3%之间。挖掘数据存储库的软件研究人员和实践者可以使用我们的方法来识别错误修复的潜在失败,并重新打开错误报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Supplementary Bug Fixes vs. Re-opened Bugs
A typical bug fixing cycle involves the reporting of a bug, the triaging of the report, the production and verification of a fix, and the closing of the bug. However, previous work has studied two phenomena where more than one fix are associated with the same bug report. The first one is the case where developers re-open a previously fixed bug in the bug repository (sometimes even multiple times) to provide a new bug fix that replace a previous fix, whereas the second one is the case where multiple commits in the version control system contribute to the same bug report ("supplementary bug fixes"). Even though both phenomena seem related, they have never been studied together, i.e., are supplementary fixes a subset of re-opened bugs or the other way around? This paper investigates the interplay between both phenomena in five open source software projects: Mozilla, Net beans, Eclipse JDT Core, Eclipse Platform SWT, and Web Kit. We found that re-opened bugs account for between 21.6% and 33.8% of all supplementary fixes. However, 33% to 57.5% of re-opened bugs had only one commit associated, which means that the original bug report was prematurely closed instead of fixed incorrectly. Furthermore, we constructed predictive models for re-opened bugs using historical information about supplementary bug fixes with a precision between 72.2% and 97%, as well as a recall between 47.7% and 65.3%. Software researchers and practitioners who are mining data repositories can use our approach to identify potential failures of their bug fixes and the re-opening of bug reports.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
On the Use of Context in Recommending Exception Handling Code Examples A Comparative Study of Bug Patterns in Java Cloned and Non-cloned Code A Change-Type Based Empirical Study on the Stability of Cloned Code A Parallel On-Demand Algorithm for Computing Interprocedural Dominators Pangea: A Workbench for Statically Analyzing Multi-language Software Corpora
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1