静态分析工具对可用性标准的大规模研究

Marcus Nachtigall, Michael Schlichtig, E. Bodden
{"title":"静态分析工具对可用性标准的大规模研究","authors":"Marcus Nachtigall, Michael Schlichtig, E. Bodden","doi":"10.1145/3533767.3534374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Static analysis tools support developers in detecting potential coding issues, such as bugs or vulnerabilities. Research on static analysis emphasizes its technical challenges but also mentions severe usability shortcomings. These shortcomings hinder the adoption of static analysis tools, and in some cases, user dissatisfaction even leads to tool abandonment. To comprehensively assess the current state of the art, this paper presents the first systematic usability evaluation in a wide range of static analysis tools. We derived a set of 36 relevant criteria from the scientific literature and gathered a collection of 46 static analysis tools complying with our inclusion and exclusion criteria - a representative set of mainly non-proprietary tools. Then, we evaluated how well these tools fulfill the aforementioned criteria. The evaluation shows that more than half of the considered tools offer poor warning messages, while about three-quarters of the tools provide hardly any fix support. Furthermore, the integration of user knowledge is strongly neglected, which could be used for improved handling of false positives and tuning the results for the corresponding developer. Finally, issues regarding workflow integration and specialized user interfaces are proved further. These findings should prove useful in guiding and focusing further research and development in the area of user experience for static code analyses.","PeriodicalId":412271,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A large-scale study of usability criteria addressed by static analysis tools\",\"authors\":\"Marcus Nachtigall, Michael Schlichtig, E. Bodden\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3533767.3534374\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Static analysis tools support developers in detecting potential coding issues, such as bugs or vulnerabilities. Research on static analysis emphasizes its technical challenges but also mentions severe usability shortcomings. These shortcomings hinder the adoption of static analysis tools, and in some cases, user dissatisfaction even leads to tool abandonment. To comprehensively assess the current state of the art, this paper presents the first systematic usability evaluation in a wide range of static analysis tools. We derived a set of 36 relevant criteria from the scientific literature and gathered a collection of 46 static analysis tools complying with our inclusion and exclusion criteria - a representative set of mainly non-proprietary tools. Then, we evaluated how well these tools fulfill the aforementioned criteria. The evaluation shows that more than half of the considered tools offer poor warning messages, while about three-quarters of the tools provide hardly any fix support. Furthermore, the integration of user knowledge is strongly neglected, which could be used for improved handling of false positives and tuning the results for the corresponding developer. Finally, issues regarding workflow integration and specialized user interfaces are proved further. These findings should prove useful in guiding and focusing further research and development in the area of user experience for static code analyses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":412271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3533767.3534374\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3533767.3534374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

静态分析工具支持开发人员检测潜在的编码问题,例如bug或漏洞。对静态分析的研究强调了它的技术挑战,但也提到了严重的可用性缺陷。这些缺点阻碍了静态分析工具的采用,在某些情况下,用户的不满甚至导致了工具的放弃。为了全面评估当前的技术状态,本文首次在广泛的静态分析工具中进行了系统的可用性评估。我们从科学文献中导出了一组36个相关标准,并收集了46个符合我们的纳入和排除标准的静态分析工具——主要是非专有工具的代表性集合。然后,我们评估了这些工具满足上述标准的程度。评估显示,超过一半的被考虑的工具提供了糟糕的警告消息,而大约四分之三的工具几乎没有提供任何修复支持。此外,用户知识的集成被严重忽视,这可以用于改进对误报的处理,并为相应的开发人员调整结果。最后,对工作流集成和专用用户界面等问题进行了进一步论证。这些发现对于指导和关注静态代码分析的用户体验领域的进一步研究和开发是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A large-scale study of usability criteria addressed by static analysis tools
Static analysis tools support developers in detecting potential coding issues, such as bugs or vulnerabilities. Research on static analysis emphasizes its technical challenges but also mentions severe usability shortcomings. These shortcomings hinder the adoption of static analysis tools, and in some cases, user dissatisfaction even leads to tool abandonment. To comprehensively assess the current state of the art, this paper presents the first systematic usability evaluation in a wide range of static analysis tools. We derived a set of 36 relevant criteria from the scientific literature and gathered a collection of 46 static analysis tools complying with our inclusion and exclusion criteria - a representative set of mainly non-proprietary tools. Then, we evaluated how well these tools fulfill the aforementioned criteria. The evaluation shows that more than half of the considered tools offer poor warning messages, while about three-quarters of the tools provide hardly any fix support. Furthermore, the integration of user knowledge is strongly neglected, which could be used for improved handling of false positives and tuning the results for the corresponding developer. Finally, issues regarding workflow integration and specialized user interfaces are proved further. These findings should prove useful in guiding and focusing further research and development in the area of user experience for static code analyses.
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
×
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