重构变化对SZZ算法的影响:实证研究

Edmilson Campos Neto, D. A. D. Costa, U. Kulesza
{"title":"重构变化对SZZ算法的影响:实证研究","authors":"Edmilson Campos Neto, D. A. D. Costa, U. Kulesza","doi":"10.1109/SANER.2018.8330225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SZZ is a widely used algorithm in the software engineering community to identify changes that are likely to introduce bugs (i.e., bug-introducing changes). Despite its wide adoption, SZZ still has room for improvements. For example, current SZZ implementations may still flag refactoring changes as bug-introducing. Refactorings should be disregarded as bug-introducing because they do not change the system behaviour. In this paper, we empirically investigate how refactorings impact both the input (bug-fix changes) and the output (bug-introducing changes) of the SZZ algorithm. We analyse 31,518 issues of ten Apache projects with 20,298 bug-introducing changes. We use an existing tool that automatically detects refactorings in code changes. We observe that 6.5% of lines that are flagged as bug-introducing changes by SZZ are in fact refactoring changes. Regarding bug-fix changes, we observe that 19.9% of lines that are removed during a fix are related to refactorings and, therefore, their respective inducing changes are false positives. We then incorporate the refactoring-detection tool in our Refactoring Aware SZZ Implementation (RA-SZZ). Our results reveal that RA-SZZ reduces 20.8% of the lines that are flagged as bug-introducing changes compared to the state-of-the-art SZZ implementations. Finally, we perform a manual analysis to identify change patterns that are not captured by the refactoring identification tool used in our study. Our results reveal that 47.95% of the analyzed bug-introducing changes contain additional change patterns that RA-SZZ should not flag as bug-introducing.","PeriodicalId":6602,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)","volume":"145 5 1","pages":"380-390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"67","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of refactoring changes on the SZZ algorithm: An empirical study\",\"authors\":\"Edmilson Campos Neto, D. A. D. Costa, U. Kulesza\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SANER.2018.8330225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"SZZ is a widely used algorithm in the software engineering community to identify changes that are likely to introduce bugs (i.e., bug-introducing changes). Despite its wide adoption, SZZ still has room for improvements. For example, current SZZ implementations may still flag refactoring changes as bug-introducing. Refactorings should be disregarded as bug-introducing because they do not change the system behaviour. In this paper, we empirically investigate how refactorings impact both the input (bug-fix changes) and the output (bug-introducing changes) of the SZZ algorithm. We analyse 31,518 issues of ten Apache projects with 20,298 bug-introducing changes. We use an existing tool that automatically detects refactorings in code changes. We observe that 6.5% of lines that are flagged as bug-introducing changes by SZZ are in fact refactoring changes. Regarding bug-fix changes, we observe that 19.9% of lines that are removed during a fix are related to refactorings and, therefore, their respective inducing changes are false positives. We then incorporate the refactoring-detection tool in our Refactoring Aware SZZ Implementation (RA-SZZ). Our results reveal that RA-SZZ reduces 20.8% of the lines that are flagged as bug-introducing changes compared to the state-of-the-art SZZ implementations. Finally, we perform a manual analysis to identify change patterns that are not captured by the refactoring identification tool used in our study. Our results reveal that 47.95% of the analyzed bug-introducing changes contain additional change patterns that RA-SZZ should not flag as bug-introducing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)\",\"volume\":\"145 5 1\",\"pages\":\"380-390\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"67\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2018.8330225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2018.8330225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 67

摘要

SZZ是软件工程社区中广泛使用的算法,用于识别可能引入bug的更改(即引入bug的更改)。尽管被广泛采用,SZZ仍有改进的空间。例如,当前的SZZ实现可能仍然将重构更改标记为引入bug。重构应该被忽略为bug引入,因为它们不会改变系统行为。在本文中,我们实证地研究了重构如何影响SZZ算法的输入(bug修复更改)和输出(bug引入更改)。我们分析了10个Apache项目的31,518个问题,其中包含20,298个引入bug的更改。我们使用一个现有的工具来自动检测代码更改中的重构。我们观察到6.5%被SZZ标记为bug引入变更的行实际上是重构变更。关于bug修复更改,我们观察到在修复期间删除的19.9%的行与重构有关,因此,它们各自的诱导更改是假阳性的。然后我们将重构检测工具合并到我们的重构感知SZZ实现(RA-SZZ)中。我们的结果显示,与最先进的SZZ实现相比,RA-SZZ减少了20.8%被标记为引入bug的更改的行。最后,我们执行手动分析,以识别在我们的研究中使用的重构识别工具无法捕获的更改模式。我们的结果显示,47.95%被分析的引入bug的变更包含了RA-SZZ不应该标记为引入bug的附加变更模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of refactoring changes on the SZZ algorithm: An empirical study
SZZ is a widely used algorithm in the software engineering community to identify changes that are likely to introduce bugs (i.e., bug-introducing changes). Despite its wide adoption, SZZ still has room for improvements. For example, current SZZ implementations may still flag refactoring changes as bug-introducing. Refactorings should be disregarded as bug-introducing because they do not change the system behaviour. In this paper, we empirically investigate how refactorings impact both the input (bug-fix changes) and the output (bug-introducing changes) of the SZZ algorithm. We analyse 31,518 issues of ten Apache projects with 20,298 bug-introducing changes. We use an existing tool that automatically detects refactorings in code changes. We observe that 6.5% of lines that are flagged as bug-introducing changes by SZZ are in fact refactoring changes. Regarding bug-fix changes, we observe that 19.9% of lines that are removed during a fix are related to refactorings and, therefore, their respective inducing changes are false positives. We then incorporate the refactoring-detection tool in our Refactoring Aware SZZ Implementation (RA-SZZ). Our results reveal that RA-SZZ reduces 20.8% of the lines that are flagged as bug-introducing changes compared to the state-of-the-art SZZ implementations. Finally, we perform a manual analysis to identify change patterns that are not captured by the refactoring identification tool used in our study. Our results reveal that 47.95% of the analyzed bug-introducing changes contain additional change patterns that RA-SZZ should not flag as bug-introducing.
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