skip to main content
10.1145/3364641.3364668acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbqsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Technical Debt's State of Practice on Stack Overflow: a Preliminary Study

Published:28 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Context: Previous work have investigated the industry's state of practice on technical debt (TD) by surveying invited practitioners. However, these studies have included only practitioners with a sound understanding of TD, which might incur biases in their findings. One way to reduce this bias is to consider Q&A platforms, such as Stack Overflow (SO), because of containing practitioners with different roles and levels of TD knowledge. Therefore, the discussions on SO can broaden the perception of the state of practice on TD in the industry. Goal: To investigate how TD concepts have been discussed by SO's practitioners. Method: First, we employed data mining techniques to identify TD-related discussions on SO. Next, based on significance and popularity metrics, we considered 195 discussions to be further investigated. For each discussion, we analyzed its contents to identify types of TD followed by activities, strategies, and tools used in its management. Results: We found that code, infrastructure, and architecture debt are the most discussed types of TD on SO. Similarly, TD identification and payment are the most discussed activities. Regarding tools and strategies for TD management, SonarQube and refactoring have been mostly mentioned by practitioners. Conclusion: Our findings may indicate new research directions, as well as expanding the empirical knowledge on how the industry has handled TD.

References

  1. M. Ahasanuzzaman, M. Asaduzzaman, C. K. Roy, and K. A. Schneider. 2016. Mining duplicate questions in stack overflow. in Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories - MSR (2016), 402--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Nicolli S.R. Alves, Thiago S. Mendes, Manoel G. de Mendonça, Rodrigo O. Spínola, Forrest Shull, and Carolyn Seaman. 2016. Identification and management of technical debt: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 70 (2016), 100 -- 121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Nicolli Souza Rios Alves, Rodrigo Oliveira Spínola, Manoel G. Mendonça, and Carolyn B. Seaman. 2018. The most common causes and effects of technical debt: first results from a global family of industrial surveys. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2018, Oulu, Finland, October 11-12, 2018. 39:1--39:10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ashton Anderson, Daniel Huttenlocher, Jon Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2012. Discovering value from community activity on focused question answering sites. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining - KDD '12. ACM Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Sebastian Baltes, Christoph Treude, and Stephan Diehl. 2019. Sotorrent: Studying the origin, evolution, and usage of stack overflow code snippets. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Alan Bandeira, Carlos Alberto Medeiros, Matheus Paixao, and Paulo Henrique Maia. 2019. We Need to Talk about Microservices: an Analysis from the Discussions on StackOverflow. International Conference on Mining Software Repositories 5 (2019), 255--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ward Cunningham. 1992. The WyCash Portfolio Management System. In Addendum to the Proceedings on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (Addendum). 29--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliakim Gama, Emmanuel Sávio Silva Freire, Matheus Paixao, and Mariela Inés Cortés. 2019. Replication package for the paper: "Technical Debt's State of Practice on Stack Overflow: a Preliminary Study". https://zenodo.org/record/3383148#.XWvH8HVKhhEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Firdaus Harun and Horst Lichter. 2015. Towards a Technical Debt Management Framework based on Cost-Benefit Analysis. In Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances. 70--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. D. Kavaler, D. Posnett, C. Gibler, H. Chen, P. Devanbu, and V. Filkov. 2013. Using and asking: Apis used in the android market and asked about in stackoverflow. in International Conference on Social Informatics (2013), 405--418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Zengyang Li, Paris Avgeriou, and Peng Liang. 2015. A Systematic Mapping Study on Technical Debt and Its Management. J. Syst. Softw. 101, C (March 2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Luca Ponzanelli, Gabriele Bavota, Massimiliano Di Penta, Rocco Oliveto, and Michele Lanza. 2014. Mining StackOverflow to turn the IDE into a self-confident programming prompter. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, 102--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Narayan Ramasubbu and Chris Kemerer. 2018. Integrating Technical Debt Management and Software Quality Management Processes: A Framework and Field Tests. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Nicolli Rios, Manoel Gomes de Mendonça Neto, and Rodrigo Oliveira Spínola. 2018. A tertiary study on technical debt: Types, management strategies, research trends, and base information for practitioners. Information and Software Technology 102 (2018), 117 -- 145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Christoffer Rosen and Emad Shihab. 2016. What are mobile developers asking about? A large scale study using stack overflow. Empirical Software Engineering 21, 3 (jun 2016), 1192--1223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14, 2 (apr 2009), 131--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mohamed Soliman, Matthias Galster, Amr R. Salama, and Matthias Riebisch. 2016. Architectural knowledge for technology decisions in developer communities: An exploratory study with stackoverflow. Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA) 6 (2016), 128--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. StackOverflow. [n.d.]. Stack Overflow Annual Developer Survey. https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/ Acessado: 2019-07-23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Christoph Treude and Martin P Robillard. 2016. Augmenting api documentation with insights from stack overflow. In 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 392--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Zhu Xudong, Meng Xiaoxuan, Xiao Wenshu, Ke Jian, and Xu Lu. 2009. Z-Miner: Noise Filter In Mining Frequent Access Patterns. International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology 05 (2009), 591--595.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Technical Debt's State of Practice on Stack Overflow: a Preliminary Study

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SBQS '19: Proceedings of the XVIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality
        October 2019
        330 pages
        ISBN:9781450372824
        DOI:10.1145/3364641

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 28 October 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        SBQS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate35of99submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate35of99submissions,35%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader