An empirical study on the accuracy of GitHub’s dependency graph and the nature of its inaccuracy

IF 4.3 2区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Daniele Bifolco , Simone Romano , Sabato Nocera , Rita Francese , Giuseppe Scanniello , Massimiliano Di Penta
{"title":"An empirical study on the accuracy of GitHub’s dependency graph and the nature of its inaccuracy","authors":"Daniele Bifolco ,&nbsp;Simone Romano ,&nbsp;Sabato Nocera ,&nbsp;Rita Francese ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Scanniello ,&nbsp;Massimiliano Di Penta","doi":"10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context:</h3><div>GitHub’s dependency graph is a tool that eases Software Composition Analysis (SCA), and it is leveraged not only by other tools or by practitioners in their analyses but also by researchers when conducting studies on open-source projects. However, its potential inaccuracy may seriously harm its applicability and usefulness.</div></div><div><h3>Objective:</h3><div>This paper quantitatively and qualitatively analyzes the accuracy of GitHub’s dependency graphs for Java and Python projects, how such accuracy has changed over time, and what the likely pitfalls and limitations of the dependency graph are.</div></div><div><h3>Method:</h3><div>After creating statistically significant samples of Java and Python projects, we analyzed their dependency graph in two directions, forward (by looking at dependencies), backward (by looking at dependents), and inspected their manifest/lock files.</div></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><div>Results indicate that in our sample, dependencies have over 27% of inaccuracy, and dependents up to 10%. Errors depend on several reasons, among others, an oversimplified processing of manifest/lock files by the dependency graph generator.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion:</h3><div>Our results provide (i) guidelines for researchers to understand the threats arising in studies based on the dependency graph and (ii) insights to practitioners and tool builders to enhance their SCA, given the current limitations of the dependency graph.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54983,"journal":{"name":"Information and Software Technology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 107854"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Software Technology","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584925001934","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context:

GitHub’s dependency graph is a tool that eases Software Composition Analysis (SCA), and it is leveraged not only by other tools or by practitioners in their analyses but also by researchers when conducting studies on open-source projects. However, its potential inaccuracy may seriously harm its applicability and usefulness.

Objective:

This paper quantitatively and qualitatively analyzes the accuracy of GitHub’s dependency graphs for Java and Python projects, how such accuracy has changed over time, and what the likely pitfalls and limitations of the dependency graph are.

Method:

After creating statistically significant samples of Java and Python projects, we analyzed their dependency graph in two directions, forward (by looking at dependencies), backward (by looking at dependents), and inspected their manifest/lock files.

Results:

Results indicate that in our sample, dependencies have over 27% of inaccuracy, and dependents up to 10%. Errors depend on several reasons, among others, an oversimplified processing of manifest/lock files by the dependency graph generator.

Conclusion:

Our results provide (i) guidelines for researchers to understand the threats arising in studies based on the dependency graph and (ii) insights to practitioners and tool builders to enhance their SCA, given the current limitations of the dependency graph.
实证研究GitHub依赖图的准确性及其不准确性的本质
背景:GitHub的依赖关系图是一个简化软件组合分析(SCA)的工具,它不仅被其他工具或从业者在分析中使用,而且在对开源项目进行研究时也被研究人员使用。然而,其潜在的不准确性可能严重损害其适用性和有用性。目的:本文定量和定性地分析了GitHub的Java和Python项目依赖图的准确性,这种准确性是如何随着时间的推移而变化的,以及依赖图可能存在的缺陷和局限性。方法:在创建具有统计意义的Java和Python项目样本后,我们从两个方向分析它们的依赖关系图,向前(通过查看依赖关系)和向后(通过查看依赖关系),并检查它们的manifest/lock文件。结果:结果表明,在我们的样本中,依赖项有超过27%的不准确性,而依赖项高达10%。错误取决于几个原因,其中包括依赖关系图生成器对manifest/lock文件的处理过于简化。结论:我们的研究结果提供了(i)指导研究人员理解基于依赖图的研究中出现的威胁;(ii)考虑到依赖图当前的局限性,为从业者和工具构建者提供了增强SCA的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Information and Software Technology
Information and Software Technology 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
164
审稿时长
9.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Information and Software Technology is the international archival journal focusing on research and experience that contributes to the improvement of software development practices. The journal''s scope includes methods and techniques to better engineer software and manage its development. Articles submitted for review should have a clear component of software engineering or address ways to improve the engineering and management of software development. Areas covered by the journal include: • Software management, quality and metrics, • Software processes, • Software architecture, modelling, specification, design and programming • Functional and non-functional software requirements • Software testing and verification & validation • Empirical studies of all aspects of engineering and managing software development Short Communications is a new section dedicated to short papers addressing new ideas, controversial opinions, "Negative" results and much more. Read the Guide for authors for more information. The journal encourages and welcomes submissions of systematic literature studies (reviews and maps) within the scope of the journal. Information and Software Technology is the premiere outlet for systematic literature studies in software engineering.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信