挖掘软件缺陷:我们应该考虑受影响的版本吗?

S. Yatish, Jirayus Jiarpakdee, Patanamon Thongtanunam, C. Tantithamthavorn
{"title":"挖掘软件缺陷:我们应该考虑受影响的版本吗?","authors":"S. Yatish, Jirayus Jiarpakdee, Patanamon Thongtanunam, C. Tantithamthavorn","doi":"10.1109/ICSE.2019.00075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the rise of the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) field, defect datasets extracted from software repositories play a foundational role in many empirical studies related to software quality. At the core of defect data preparation is the identification of post-release defects. Prior studies leverage many heuristics (e.g., keywords and issue IDs) to identify post-release defects. However, such the heuristic approach is based on several assumptions, which pose common threats to the validity of many studies. In this paper, we set out to investigate the nature of the difference of defect datasets generated by the heuristic approach and the realistic approach that leverages the earliest affected release that is realistically estimated by a software development team for a given defect. In addition, we investigate the impact of defect identification approaches on the predictive accuracy and the ranking of defective modules that are produced by defect models. Through a case study of defect datasets of 32 releases, we find that that the heuristic approach has a large impact on both defect count datasets and binary defect datasets. Surprisingly, we find that the heuristic approach has a minimal impact on defect count models, suggesting that future work should not be too concerned about defect count models that are constructed using heuristic defect datasets. On the other hand, using defect datasets generated by the realistic approach lead to an improvement in the predictive accuracy of defect classification models.","PeriodicalId":6736,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"46 1","pages":"654-665"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"70","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mining Software Defects: Should We Consider Affected Releases?\",\"authors\":\"S. Yatish, Jirayus Jiarpakdee, Patanamon Thongtanunam, C. Tantithamthavorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICSE.2019.00075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the rise of the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) field, defect datasets extracted from software repositories play a foundational role in many empirical studies related to software quality. At the core of defect data preparation is the identification of post-release defects. Prior studies leverage many heuristics (e.g., keywords and issue IDs) to identify post-release defects. However, such the heuristic approach is based on several assumptions, which pose common threats to the validity of many studies. In this paper, we set out to investigate the nature of the difference of defect datasets generated by the heuristic approach and the realistic approach that leverages the earliest affected release that is realistically estimated by a software development team for a given defect. In addition, we investigate the impact of defect identification approaches on the predictive accuracy and the ranking of defective modules that are produced by defect models. Through a case study of defect datasets of 32 releases, we find that that the heuristic approach has a large impact on both defect count datasets and binary defect datasets. Surprisingly, we find that the heuristic approach has a minimal impact on defect count models, suggesting that future work should not be too concerned about defect count models that are constructed using heuristic defect datasets. On the other hand, using defect datasets generated by the realistic approach lead to an improvement in the predictive accuracy of defect classification models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"654-665\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"70\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70

摘要

随着挖掘软件存储库(MSR)领域的兴起,从软件存储库中提取的缺陷数据集在许多与软件质量相关的实证研究中起着基础作用。缺陷数据准备的核心是发布后缺陷的识别。先前的研究利用了许多启发式方法(例如,关键字和问题id)来识别发布后的缺陷。然而,这种启发式方法是基于几个假设,这对许多研究的有效性构成了共同的威胁。在本文中,我们着手调查由启发式方法和实际方法生成的缺陷数据集差异的本质,实际方法利用了由软件开发团队对给定缺陷实际估计的最早受影响的版本。此外,我们还研究了缺陷识别方法对缺陷模型产生的缺陷模块的预测精度和排名的影响。通过对32个版本的缺陷数据集的案例研究,我们发现启发式方法对缺陷计数数据集和二进制缺陷数据集都有很大的影响。令人惊讶的是,我们发现启发式方法对缺陷计数模型的影响很小,这表明未来的工作不应该过于关注使用启发式缺陷数据集构建的缺陷计数模型。另一方面,利用现实方法生成的缺陷数据集可以提高缺陷分类模型的预测精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mining Software Defects: Should We Consider Affected Releases?
With the rise of the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) field, defect datasets extracted from software repositories play a foundational role in many empirical studies related to software quality. At the core of defect data preparation is the identification of post-release defects. Prior studies leverage many heuristics (e.g., keywords and issue IDs) to identify post-release defects. However, such the heuristic approach is based on several assumptions, which pose common threats to the validity of many studies. In this paper, we set out to investigate the nature of the difference of defect datasets generated by the heuristic approach and the realistic approach that leverages the earliest affected release that is realistically estimated by a software development team for a given defect. In addition, we investigate the impact of defect identification approaches on the predictive accuracy and the ranking of defective modules that are produced by defect models. Through a case study of defect datasets of 32 releases, we find that that the heuristic approach has a large impact on both defect count datasets and binary defect datasets. Surprisingly, we find that the heuristic approach has a minimal impact on defect count models, suggesting that future work should not be too concerned about defect count models that are constructed using heuristic defect datasets. On the other hand, using defect datasets generated by the realistic approach lead to an improvement in the predictive accuracy of defect classification models.
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