Reudismam Sousa
Loris D'Antoni
ABSTRACT
Code analyzers such as Error Prone and FindBugs detect code patterns symptomatic of bugs, performance issues, or bad style. These tools express patterns as quick fixes that detect and rewrite unwanted code. However, it is difficult to come up with new quick fixes and decide which ones are useful and frequently appear in real code. We propose to rely on the collective wisdom of programmers and learn quick fixes from revision histories in software repositories. We present Revisar, a tool for discovering common Java edit patterns in code repositories. Given code repositories and their revision histories, Revisar (i) identifies code edits from revisions and (ii) clusters edits into sets that can be described using an edit pattern. The designers of code analyzers can then inspect the patterns and add the corresponding quick fixes to their tools. We ran Revisar on nine popular GitHub projects, and it discovered 89 useful edit patterns that appeared in 3 or more projects. Moreover, 64% of the discovered patterns did not appear in existing tools. We then conducted a survey with 164 programmers from 124 projects and found that programmers significantly preferred eight out of the nine of the discovered patterns. Finally, we submitted 16 pull requests applying our patterns to 9 projects and, at the time of the writing, programmers accepted 7 (63.6%) of them. The results of this work aid toolsmiths in discovering quick fixes and making informed decisions about which quick fixes to prioritize based on patterns programmers actually apply in practice.
- J. Andersen and J. L. Lawall. 2008. Generic Patch Inference. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (L’Aquila, AQ, Italy) (ASE ’08). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 337–346.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Baumgartner and T. Kutsia. 2017. Unranked second-order anti-unification. Information and Computation 255, 2 (2017), 262 – 286.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Baumgartner, T. Kutsia, J. Levy, and M. Villaret. 2017. Higher-Order Pattern Anti-Unification in Linear Time. Journal of Automated Reasoning 58, 1 (2017), 293–310.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57, 1(1995), 289–300.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Bingham Brown, Michael Vaughn, Ben Liblit, and Thomas Reps. 2017. The Care and Feeding of Wild-caught Mutants. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (Paderborn, Germany) (ESEC/FSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 511–522.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter Bulychev and Marius Minea. 2009. An evaluation of duplicate code detection using anti-unification. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop On Software Clones (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (IWSC ’09). Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1–6.Google Scholar
- J. Campbell, C. Quincy, J. Osserman, and O. Pedersen. 2013. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews. Sociological Methods & Research 42, 3 (2013), 294–320.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leandro Ungari Cayres, Bruno Santos de Lima, and Rogério Eduardo García. 2019. Learning and Suggesting Source Code Changes from Version History: A Systematic Review.arXiv: Software Engineering(2019), 1–15.Google Scholar
- Loris D’Antoni, Rishabh Singh, and Michael Vaughn. 2017. NoFAQ: Synthesizing Command Repairs from Examples. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (Paderborn, Germany) (ESEC/FSE’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 582–592.Google ScholarDigital Library
- DZone. 2021. FileInputStream / FileOutputStream Considered Harmful. At https://dzone.com/articles/fileinputstream-fileoutputstream-considered-harmful. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- W. S. Evans, C. W. Fraser, and F. Ma. 2007. Clone Detection via Structural Abstraction. In Proceedings of 14th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (WCRE ’07). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 150–159.Google Scholar
- J. Falleri, F. Morandat, X. Blanc, M. Martinez, and M. Monperrus. 2014. Fine-grained and Accurate Source Code Differencing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (Vasteras, Sweden) (ASE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 313–324.Google Scholar
- Mark Gabel and Zhendong Su. 2010. A Study of the Uniqueness of Source Code. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (Santa Fe, USA) (FSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 147–156.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Google. 2012. Guava. At https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/Float.html. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- Abram Hindle, Earl T. Barr, Zhendong Su, Mark Gabel, and Premkumar Devanbu. 2012. On the Naturalness of Software. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (Zurich, Switzerland) (ICSE ’12). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 837–847.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Hora, N. Anquetil, S. Ducasse, and S. Allier. 2012. Domain specific warnings: Are they any better?. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Maintenance (Trento, Italy) ((ICSM’ 12). IEEE, Piscataway, USA, 441–450.Google Scholar
- André Hora, Nicolas Anquetil, Anne Etien, Stéphane Ducasse, and Marco Túlio Valente. 2015. Automatic detection of system-specific conventions unknown to developers. Journal of Systems and Software 109, 1 (2015), 192–204.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Janke and P. Mader. 2020. Graph Based Mining of Code Change Patterns from Version Control Commits. Transactions on Software Engineering 1, 1 (2020), 1–16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Java JDK. 2021. JDK Bug System. At https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187325. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- D. Jeffrey, M. Feng, N. Gupta, and R. Gupta. 2009. BugFix: A learning-based tool to assist developers in fixing bugs. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension(ICPC ’09). IEEE, Piscataway, USA, 70–79.Google Scholar
- M. Kessentini, W. Kessentini, H. Sahraoui, M. Boukadoum, and A. Ouni. 2011. Design Defects Detection and Correction by Example. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Program Comprehension(ICPC ’11). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 81–90.Google Scholar
- Dongsun Kim, Jaechang Nam, Jaewoo Song, and Sunghun Kim. 2013. Automatic Patch Generation Learned from Human-written Patches. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (San Francisco, USA) (ICSE ’13). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 802–811.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Koyuncu, K. Liu, T. Bissyandé, D. Kim, J. Klein, M. Monperrus, and Y. Le Traon. 2020. FixMiner: Mining relevant fix patterns for automated program repair. Empirical Software Engineering 25, 3 (2020), 1980–2024.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159–174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daoyuan Li, Li Li, Dongsun Kim, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé, David Lo, and Yves Le Traon. 2019. Watch out for this commit! A study of influential software changes. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 31, 12 (2019), 1–25.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Liu, J. Yang, L. Tan, and M. Hafiz. 2013. R2Fix: Automatically Generating Bug Fixes from Bug Reports. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation(Neumunster Abbey, Luxembourg, French) (ICST ’13). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 282–291.Google Scholar
- K. Liu, D. Kim, T. Bissyande, S. Yoo, and Y. Traon. 2018. Mining Fix Patterns for FindBugs Violations. Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 1 (2018), 165–188.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Liu, A. Koyuncu, D. Kim, and T. Bissyandé. 2019. TBar: Revisiting Template-Based Automated Program Repair. In Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (Beijing, China) (ISSTA’ 19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31–42.Google Scholar
- X. Liu and H. Zhong. 2018. Mining stackoverflow for program repair. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (Campobasso, Italy) (SANER ’18). IEEE, Piscataway, USA, 118–129.Google Scholar
- Fan Long and Martin Rinard. 2016. Automatic Patch Generation by Learning Correct Code. Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages 51, 1 (2016), 298–312.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Diego Marcilio, Carlo A. Furia, Rodrigo Bonifácio, and Gustavo Pinto. 2020. SpongeBugs: Automatically generating fix suggestions in response to static code analysis warnings. Journal of Systems and Software 168, 1 (2020), 1–20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Na Meng, Lisa Hua, Miryung Kim, and Kathryn S. McKinley. 2015. Does Automated Refactoring Obviate Systematic Editing?. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1 (Florence, Italy) (ICSE ’15). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 392–402.Google Scholar
- Na Meng, Miryung Kim, and Kathryn S. McKinley. 2013. LASE: Locating and Applying Systematic Edits by Learning from Examples. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (San Francisco, USA) (ICSE ’13). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 502–511.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stas Negara, Mihai Codoban, Danny Dig, and Ralph E. Johnson. 2014. Mining Fine-grained Code Changes to Detect Unknown Change Patterns. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (Hyderabad, India) (ICSE’ 14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 803–813.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoan Anh Nguyen, Anh Tuan Nguyen, Tung Thanh Nguyen, Tien N. Nguyen, and H. Rajan. 2013. A study of repetitiveness of code changes in software evolution. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (Silicon Valley, USA) (ASE ’13). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 180–190.Google Scholar
- Tung Thanh Nguyen, Hoan Anh Nguyen, Nam H. Pham, Jafar Al-Kofahi, and Tien N. Nguyen. 2010. Recurring Bug Fixes in Object-oriented Programs. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Cape Town, South Africa) (ICSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 315–324.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oracle. 2021. ConcurrentSkipListSet. At https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentSkipListSet.html. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- Oracle. 2021. Raw Types. At https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/generics/rawTypes.html. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- Oracle. 2021. StringBuilder. At https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/StringBuilder.html. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- Oracle. 2021. Type Inference for Generic Instance Creation. At https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/type-inference-generic-instance-creation.html. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- Java Practices. 2021. Use final liberally. At http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=23. Accessed in 2021, July 14.Google Scholar
- L. Renggli, S. Ducasse, T. Gîrba, and O. Nierstrasz. 2010. Domain-Specific Program Checking. In Proceedings of the 48th International Conference Objects, Models, Components, Patterns (Málaga, Spain) (TOOLS’ 10), J. Vitek (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 213–232.Google Scholar
- R. Rolim, G. Soares, L. D’Antoni, O. Polozov, S. Gulwani, R. Gheyi, R. Suzuki, and B. Hartmann. 2017. Learning Syntactic Program Transformations from Examples. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (ICSE ’17). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 404–415.Google Scholar
- G. Sakkas, M. Endres, B. Cosman, W. Weimer, and R. Jhala. 2020. Type Error Feedback via Analytic Program Repair. In Proceedings of the 41st Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (London, UK) (PLDI 2020). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16–30.Google Scholar
- Danilo Silva, Nikolaos Tsantalis, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. Why We Refactor? Confessions of GitHub Contributors. In Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (Seattle, WA, USA) (FSE 2016). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 858–870.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Victor Sobreira, Thomas Durieux, Fernanda Madeiral, Martin Monperrus, and Marcelo A. Maia. 2018. Dissection of a Bug Dataset: Anatomy of 395 Patches from Defects4J. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering(SANER ’18). IEEE, Piscataway, USA, 130–140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Ueda, T. Ishio, A. Ihara, and K. Matsumoto. 2020. DevReplay: Automatic Repair with Editable Fix Pattern. ArXiv: Software Engineering(2020), 1–15.Google Scholar
- Louis Wasserman. 2013. Scalable, Example-based Refactorings with Refaster. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Refactoring Tools (Indianapolis, USA) (WRT ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 25–28.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Miltiadis Allamanis, Marc Brockschmidt, and Alexander L. Gaunt. 2019. Learning to Represent Edits. arXiv: Software Engineering(2019), 1–22.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Memories of bug fixes
SIGSOFT '06/FSE-14: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineeringThe change history of a software project contains a rich collection of code changes that record previous development experience. Changes that fix bugs are especially interesting, since they record both the old buggy code and the new fixed code. This ...
Supplementary Bug Fixes vs. Re-opened Bugs
SCAM '14: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and ManipulationA 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 ...
Comments