Analyzing Conflict Predictors in Open-Source Java Projects

Paola R. G. Accioly, Paulo Borba, L. Silva, Guilherme Cavalcanti
{"title":"Analyzing Conflict Predictors in Open-Source Java Projects","authors":"Paola R. G. Accioly, Paulo Borba, L. Silva, Guilherme Cavalcanti","doi":"10.1145/3196398.3196437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In collaborative development environments integration conflicts occur frequently. To alleviate this problem, different awareness tools have been proposed to alert developers about potential conflicts before they become too complex. However, there is not much empirical evidence supporting the strategies used by these tools. Learning about what types of changes most likely lead to conflicts might help to derive more appropriate requirements for early conflict detection, and suggest improvements to existing conflict detection tools. To bring such evidence, in this paper we analyze the effectiveness of two types of code changes as conflict predictors. Namely, editions to the same method, and editions to directly dependent methods. We conduct an empirical study analyzing part of the development history of 45 Java projects from GitHub and Travis CI, including 5,647 merge scenarios, to compute the precision and recall for the conflict predictors aforementioned. Our results indicate that the predictors combined have a precision of 57.99% and a recall of 82.67%. Moreover, we conduct a manual analysis which provides insights about strategies that could further increase the precision and the recall.","PeriodicalId":6639,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE/ACM 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)","volume":"85 1","pages":"576-586"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE/ACM 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3196398.3196437","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

In collaborative development environments integration conflicts occur frequently. To alleviate this problem, different awareness tools have been proposed to alert developers about potential conflicts before they become too complex. However, there is not much empirical evidence supporting the strategies used by these tools. Learning about what types of changes most likely lead to conflicts might help to derive more appropriate requirements for early conflict detection, and suggest improvements to existing conflict detection tools. To bring such evidence, in this paper we analyze the effectiveness of two types of code changes as conflict predictors. Namely, editions to the same method, and editions to directly dependent methods. We conduct an empirical study analyzing part of the development history of 45 Java projects from GitHub and Travis CI, including 5,647 merge scenarios, to compute the precision and recall for the conflict predictors aforementioned. Our results indicate that the predictors combined have a precision of 57.99% and a recall of 82.67%. Moreover, we conduct a manual analysis which provides insights about strategies that could further increase the precision and the recall.
分析开源Java项目中的冲突预测器
在协作开发环境中,集成冲突经常发生。为了缓解这个问题,已经提出了不同的意识工具,以便在潜在冲突变得过于复杂之前提醒开发人员。然而,没有太多的经验证据支持这些工具所使用的策略。了解哪些类型的变更最有可能导致冲突,可能有助于为早期冲突检测得出更合适的需求,并对现有冲突检测工具提出改进建议。为了证明这一点,本文分析了两种类型的代码变更作为冲突预测器的有效性。也就是说,相同方法的版本和直接依赖方法的版本。我们进行了一项实证研究,分析了来自GitHub和Travis CI的45个Java项目的部分开发历史,包括5,647个合并场景,以计算上述冲突预测器的精度和召回率。我们的结果表明,预测因子组合的准确率为57.99%,召回率为82.67%。此外,我们还进行了人工分析,提供了进一步提高准确率和召回率的策略见解。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信