Advertisement

Data-Driven Decisions and Actions in Today’s Software Development

  • Harald Gall
  • Carol Alexandru
  • Adelina Ciurumelea
  • Giovanni Grano
  • Christoph Laaber
  • Sebastiano Panichella
  • Sebastian Proksch
  • Gerald Schermann
  • Carmine Vassallo
  • Jitong Zhao
Open Access
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Today’s software development is all about data: data about the software product itself, about the process and its different stages, about the customers and markets, about the development, the testing, the integration, the deployment, or the runtime aspects in the cloud. We use static and dynamic data of various kinds and quantities to analyze market feedback, feature impact, code quality, architectural design alternatives, or effects of performance optimizations. Development environments are no longer limited to IDEs in a desktop application or the like but span the Internet using live programming environments such as Cloud9 or large-volume repositories such as BitBucket, GitHub, GitLab, or StackOverflow. Software development has become “live” in the cloud, be it the coding, the testing, or the experimentation with different product options on the Internet. The inherent complexity puts a further burden on developers, since they need to stay alert when constantly switching between tasks in different phases. Research has been analyzing the development process, its data and stakeholders, for decades and is working on various tools that can help developers in their daily tasks to improve the quality of their work and their productivity. In this chapter, we critically reflect on the challenges faced by developers in a typical release cycle, identify inherent problems of the individual phases, and present the current state of the research that can help overcome these issues.

Download to read the full chapter text

References

  1. 1.
    Alcocer, J.P.S., Bergel, A., Valente, M.T.: Learning from source code history to identify performance failures. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/ SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE), pp. 37–48 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexandru, C.V., Panichella, S., Gall, H.: Reducing redundancies in multi-revision code analysis. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), Klagenfurt (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali, S., Briand, L.C., Hemmati, H., Panesar-Walawege, R.K.: A systematic review of the application and empirical investigation of search-based test case generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36(6), 742–762 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allamanis, M., Sutton, C.: Mining source code repositories at massive scale using language modeling. In: Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR ’13, pp. 207–216. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allamanis, M., Barr, E.T., Bird, C., Sutton, C.: Learning natural coding conventions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2014, pp. 281–293. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allamanis, M., Barr, E.T., Bird, C., Sutton, C.: Suggesting accurate method and class names. In: Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2015, pp. 38–49. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allamanis, M., Barr, E.T., Devanbu, P., Sutton, C.: A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness. arXiv e-prints, September 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amann, S., Proksch, S., Nadi, S.: FeedBaG: an interaction tracker for visual studio. In: International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE, Piscataway (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amann, S., Proksch, S., Nadi, S., Mezini, M.: A study of visual studio usage in practice. In: International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering. IEEE, Piscataway (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bacchelli, A., Sasso, T.D., D’Ambros, M., Lanza, M.: Content classification of development emails. In: 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, June 2–9, Zurich, pp. 375–385 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barr, E.T., Harman, M., McMinn, P., Shahbaz, M., Yoo, S.: The oracle problem in software testing: a survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(5), 507–525 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beizer, B.: Software Testing Techniques, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beller, M., Gousios, G., Panichella, A., Zaidman, A.: When, how, and why developers (do not) test in their IDEs. In: Proceedings of the 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACMSIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Binkley, D., Lawrie, D., Hill, E., Burge, J., Harris, I., Hebig, R., Keszocze, O., Reed, K., Slankas, J.: Task-driven software summarization. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 432–435. IEEE, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooks, F.P.Jr.: The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruch, M., Monperrus, M., Mezini, M.: Learning from examples to improve code completion systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 213–222. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bulej, L., Bureš, T., Horký, V., Kotrč, J., Marek, L., Trojánek, T., Tůma, P.: Unit testing performance with stochastic performance logic. Autom. Softw. Eng. 24(1), 139–187 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buse R.P.L., Weimer, W.R.: Automatically documenting program changes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE ’10, pp. 33–42. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell, J.C., Hindle, A., Amaral, J.N.: Syntax errors just aren’t natural: improving error reporting with language models. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, pp. 252–261. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ceccato, M., Marchetto, A., Mariani, L., Nguyen, C.D., Tonella, P.: Do automatically generated test cases make debugging easier? An experimental assessment of debugging effectiveness and efficiency. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 25(1), 5:1–5:38 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang, K.H., Cross II, J.H., Carlisle, W.H., Liao, S.-S.: A performance evaluation of heuristics-based test case generation methods for software branch coverage. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 6(04), 585–608 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen, L.: Continuous delivery: huge benefits, but challenges too. Softw. IEEE 32(2), 50–54 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen, L.: Continuous delivery: overcoming adoption challenges. J. Syst. Softw. 128, 72–86 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen, N., Lin, J., Hoi, S.C.H., Xiao, X., Zhang, B.: Ar-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2014, pp. 767–778. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cito, J., Leitner, P., Fritz, T., Gall, H.C.: The making of cloud applications: an empirical study on software development for the cloud. In: Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp. 393–403. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cito, J., Schermann, G., Wittern, J.E., Leitner, P., Zumberi, S., Gall, H.C.: An empirical analysis of the docker container ecosystem on github. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR ’17, pp. 323–333. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ciurumelea, A., Schaufelbühl, A., Panichella, S., Gall, H.: Analyzing reviews and code of mobile apps for better release planning. In: 2017 IEEE 24th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 91–102 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cortes-Coy, L.F., Vásquez, M.L., Aponte, J., Poshyvanyk, D.: On automatically generating commit messages via summarization of source code changes. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM), pp. 275–284. IEEE, Piscataway (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daka, E., Campos, J., Fraser, G., Dorn, J., Weimer, W.: Modeling readability to improve unit tests. In: Proceedings of the 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACMSIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D’Ambros, M., Lanza, M., Robbes, R.: Commit 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Web 2.0 for Software Engineering, Web2SE ’10, pp. 14–19. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D’Ambros, M., Lanza, M., Robbes, R.: Evaluating defect prediction approaches: a benchmark and an extensive comparison. Empir. Softw. Eng. 17(4–5), 531–577 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Damevski, K., Shepherd, D., Schneider, J., Pollock, L.: Mining sequences of developer interactions in visual studio for usage smells. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43(4), 359–371 (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Lucia, A., Di Penta, M., Oliveto, R., Panichella, A., Panichella, S.: Using IR methods for labeling source code artifacts: is it worthwhile? In: IEEE 20th International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2012, Passau, June 11–13, 2012, pp. 193–202 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Lucia, A., Di Penta, M., Oliveto, R., Panichella, A., Panichella, S.: Labeling source code with information retrieval methods: an empirical study. Empir. Softw. Eng. 19(5), 1383–1420 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Oliveira, A.B., Fischmeister, S., Diwan, A., Hauswirth, M., Sweeney, P.: Perphecy: performance regression test selection made simple but effective. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), Tokyo (2017)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Di Sorbo, A., Panichella, S., Visaggio, C.A., Di Penta, M., Canfora, G., Gall, H.C.: Development emails content analyzer: intention mining in developer discussions. In: 2015, 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 12–23. IEEE, Washington (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Di Sorbo, A., Panichella, S., Alexandru, C., Shimagaki, J., Visaggio, C.A., Canfora, G., Gall, H.C.: What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes. In: 2016 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 499–510 (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Di Sorbo, A., Panichella, S., Alexandru, C.V., Visaggio, C.A., Canfora, G.: Surf: summarizer of user reviews feedback. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, pp. 55–58. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dias, M., Cassou, D., Ducasse, S.: Representing code history with development environment events. In: International Workshop on Smalltalk Technologies (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dyer, R.: Bringing ultra-large-scale software repository mining to the masses with Boa. PhD thesis, Ames (2013). AAI3610634Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fabijan, A., Dmitriev, P., Olsson, H.H., Bosch, J.: The evolution of continuous experimentation in software product development. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE, Buenos Aires (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ferguson, R., Korel, B.: The chaining approach for software test data generation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 5(1), 63–86 (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fluri, B., Wuersch, M., PInzger, M., Gall, H.: Change distilling: tree differencing for fine-grained source code change extraction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(11), 725–743 (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: Evosuite: automatic test suite generation for object-oriented software. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE ’11, pp. 416–419. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: Whole test suite generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(2), 276–291 (2013)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: 1600 faults in 100 projects: automatically finding faults while achieving high coverage with evosuite. Empir. Softw. Eng. 20(3), 611–639 (2015)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fraser, G., Staats, M., McMinn, P., Arcuri, A., Padberg, F.: Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers? In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 291–301. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gall, H.C., Fluri, B., Pinzger, M.: Change analysis with evolizer and changedistiller. Software, IEEE 26(1), 26–33 (2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gallagher, M.J., Lakshmi Narasimhan, V: Adtest: a test data generation suite for ada software systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(8), 473–484 (1997)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Georges, A., Buytaert, D., Eeckhout, L.: Statistically rigorous java performance evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems and Applications, OOPSLA ’07, pp. 57–76. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1989)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Grano, G., Di Sorbo, A., Mercaldo, F., Aaron Visaggio, C., Canfora, G., Panichella, S.: Android apps and user feedback: a dataset for software evolution and quality improvement. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on App Market Analytics, WAMA@ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017, Paderborn, September 5, 2017, pp. 8–11 (2017)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Guzman, E., Maalej, W.: How do users like this feature? A fine grained sentiment analysis of app reviews. In: 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 153–162 (2014)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ha, E., Wagner, D.: Do android users write about electric sheep? Examining consumer reviews in google play. In: Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), 2013 IEEE, pp. 149–157 (2013)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hahn, U., Mani, I.: The challenges of automatic summarization. Computer 33(11), 29–36 (2000)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Haiduc, S., Aponte, J., Moreno, L., Marcus, A.: On the use of automated text summarization techniques for summarizing source code. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), pp. 35–44. IEEE, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hammad, M., Abuljadayel, A., Khalaf, M.: Automatic summarising: the state of the art. Lect. Notes Softw. Eng. 4(2), 129–132 (2016)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Heger, C., Happe, J., Farahbod, R.: Automated root cause isolation of performance regressions during software development. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering, ICPE ’13, pp. 27–38. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hellendoorn, V.J., Devanbu, P.T., Bacchelli, A.: Will they like this? Evaluating code contributions with language models. In: Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR ’15, pp. 157–167. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2015)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hindle, A., Barr, E.T., Su, Z., Gabel, M., Devanbu, P.: On the naturalness of software. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’12, pp. 837–847. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2012)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huang, P., Ma, X., Shen, D., Zhou, Y.: Performance regression testing target prioritization via performance risk analysis. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2014, pp. 60–71. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Humble, J., Farley, D.: Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2010)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Iacob, C., Harrison, R.: Retrieving and analyzing mobile apps feature requests from online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR’13, pp. 41–44. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jin, G., Song, L., Shi, X., Scherpelz, J., Lu, S.: Understanding and detecting real-world performance bugs. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’12, pp. 77–88. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kamimura, M., Murphy, G.C.: Towards generating human-oriented summaries of unit test cases. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), May, pp. 215–218. IEEE, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kerzazi, N., Khomh, F., Adams, B.: Why do automated builds break? An empirical study. In: 30th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp. 41–50. IEEE, Piscataway (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kim, J., You, B., Kwon, M., McMinn, P., Yoo, S.: Evaluating CAVM: a new search-based test data generation tool for C. In: International Symposium on Search-Based Software Engineering (SSBSE 2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ko, A.J., Myers, B.A., Aung, H.H.: Six learning barriers in end-user programming systems. In: 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, pp. 199–206. IEEE, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kocaguneli, E., Menzies, T., Keung, J.W.: On the value of ensemble effort estimation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38(6), 1403–1416 (2012)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kohavi, R., Deng, A., Frasca, B., Walker, T., Xu, Y., Pohlmann, N.: Online controlled experiments at large scale. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1168–1176. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lahiri, S.K., Hawblitzel, C., Kawaguchi, M., Rebêlo, H.: SYMDIFF: A Language-Agnostic Semantic Diff Tool for Imperative Programs, pp. 712–717. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lakhotia, K., Harman, M., Gross, H. (2013) Austin: an open source tool for search based software testing of C programs. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(1), 112–125 (2013)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Leitner, P., Bezemer, C.-P.: An exploratory study of the state of practice of performance testing in java-based open source projects. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/SPEC on International Conference on Performance Engineering, ICPE ’17, pp. 373–384. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Maalej, W., Nabil, H.: Bug report, feature request, or simply praise? On automatically classifying app reviews. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), August, pp. 116–125 (2015)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    McBurney, P.W., McMillan, C.: Automatic documentation generation via source code summarization of method context. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), pp. 279–290. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    McCandless, M., Hatcher, E., Gospodnetic, O.: Lucene in Action: Covers Apache Lucene 3.0. Manning Publications Co., Greenwich (2010)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    McMinn, P.: Search-based software testing: past, present and future. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops, ICSTW ’11, pp. 153–163. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mende, T., Koschke, R.: Revisiting the evaluation of defect prediction models. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering, PROMISE ’09, pp. 7:1–7:10. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Minelli, R., Mocci, A., Robbes, R., Lanza, M.: Taming the ide with fine-grained interaction data. In: International Conference on Program Comprehension (2016)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Moreno, L., Marcus, A.: Automatic software summarization: the state of the art. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, May 20–28, 2017—Companion Volume, pp. 511–512 (2017)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Moreno, L., Aponte, J., Sridhara, G., Marcus, A., Pollock, L., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Automatic generation of natural language summaries for java classes. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), May, pp. 23–32. IEEE, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Moreno, L., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., Oliveto, R., Marcus, A., Canfora, G.: Automatic generation of release notes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, (FSE-22), Hong Kong, November 16–22, 2014, pp. 484–495 (2014)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Moritz, E., Linares-Vásquez, M., Poshyvanyk, D., Grechanik, M., McMillan, C., Gethers, M.: Export: detecting and visualizing API usages in large source code repositories. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 646–651. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Murphy, G.C.: Lightweight structural summarization as an aid to software evolution. PhD thesis (1996). AAI9704521Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Murphy, G.C., Kersten, M., Findlater, L.: How are java software developers using the eclipse IDE? IEEE Softw. 23(4), 76–83 (2006)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nazar, N., Hu, Y., Jiang, H.: Summarizing software artifacts: a literature review. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 31(5), 883–909 (2016)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Negara, S., Vakilian, M., Chen, N., Johnson, R.E., Dig, D.: Is it dangerous to use version control histories to study source code evolution? In: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pp. 79–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Palomba, F., Salza, P., Ciurumelea, A., Panichella, S., Gall, H.C., Ferrucci, F., De Lucia, A.: Recommending and localizing change requests for mobile apps based on user reviews. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, May 20–28, pp. 106–117 (2017)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Panichella, S., Aponte, J., Di Penta, M., Marcus, A., Canfora, G.: Mining source code descriptions from developer communications. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC, pp. 63–72. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2012)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Panichella, S., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., Canfora, G., Antoniol, G.: How developers’ collaborations identified from different sources tell us about code changes. In: 30th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, Victoria, September 29–October 3, pp. 251–260 (2014)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Panichella, A., Kifetew, F.M., Tonella, P.: Reformulating branch coverage as a many-objective optimization problem. In: ICST, pp. 1–10. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2015)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Panichella, S., Di Sorbo, A., Guzman, E., Visaggio, C.A., Canfora, G., Gall, H.C.: How can I improve my app? Classifying user reviews for software maintenance and evolution. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp. 281–290 (2015)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Panichella, S., Di Sorbo, A., Guzman, E., Visaggio, C.A., Canfora, G., Gall, G., Gall, H.C.: Ardoc: app reviews development oriented classifier. In: 2016 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 1023–1027 (2016)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Panichella, S., Panichella, A., Beller, M., Zaidman, A., Gall, H.C.: The impact of test case summaries on bug fixing performance: an empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’16, pp. 547–558. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ponzanelli, L., Bavota, G., Di Penta, M., Oliveto, R., Lanza, M.: Prompter: a self-confident recommender system. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp. 577–580. IEEE, Victoria (2014)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ponzanelli, L., Mocci, A., Lanza, M.: Summarizing complex development artifacts by mining heterogeneous data. In: Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR ’15, pp. 401–405. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2015)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Proksch, S., Bauer, V., Murphy, G.C.: How to build a recommendation system for software engineering. In: Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Proksch, S., Lerch, J., Mezini, M.: Intelligent code completion with Bayesian networks. Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 25(1), 3 (2015)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Proksch, S., Amann, S., Nadi, S., Mezini, M.: Evaluating the evaluations of code recommender systems: a reality check. In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Proksch, S., Amann, S., Nadi, S.: Enriched event streams: a general dataset for empirical studies on in-IDE activities of software developers. In: International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (accepted Mining Challenge) (2017)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Proksch, S., Nadi, S., Amann, S., Mezini, M.: Enriching in-IDE process information with fine-grained source code history. In: International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (2017)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Radevski, S., Hata, H., Matsumoto, K.: Towards building api usage example metrics. In: 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), vol. 1, pp. 619–623. IEEE, Piscataway (2016)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Rastkar, S., Murphy, G.C., Murray, G.: Summarizing software artifacts: a case study of bug reports. In: Proceedings of the 32Nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - volume 1, ICSE ’10, pp. 505–514 (2010)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Rastkar, S., Murphy, G.C., Murray, G.: Automatic summarization of bug reports. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40(4), 366–380 (2014)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ray, B., Hellendoorn, V., Godhane, S., Tu, Z., Bacchelli, A., Devanbu, P.: On the “naturalness” of buggy code. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’16, pp. 428–439. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Robillard, M.P.: What makes APIs hard to learn? Answers from developers. IEEE Softw. 26(6), 27–39 (2009)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rojas, J.M., Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: Automated unit test generation during software development: a controlled experiment and think-aloud observations. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2015, pp. 338–349. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Saied, M.A., Benomar, O., Abdeen, H., Sahraoui, H.: Mining multi-level api usage patterns. In: 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 23–32. IEEE, Piscataway (2015)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Saied, M.A., Benomar, O., Abdeen, H., Sahraoui, H.: Mining multi-level api usage patterns. In: 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 23–32. IEEE, Piscataway (2015)Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Scalabrino, S., Grano, G., Di Nucci, D., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A.: Search-based testing of procedural programs: iterative single-target or multi-target approach? In: Search Based Software Engineering, October, pp. 64–79. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Schermann, G., Cito, J., Leitner, P., Gall, H.C.: Towards quality gates in continuous delivery and deployment. In: 2016 IEEE 24th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), pp. 1–4. IEEE, Piscataway (2016)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Schermann, G., Schöni, D., Leitner, P., Gall, H.C.: Bifrost: supporting continuous deployment with automated enactment of multi-phase live testing strategies. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Middleware Conference, pp. 12:1–12:14. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Schermann, G., Cito, J., Leitner, P., Zdun, U., Gall, H.C.: We’re doing it live: an empirical study on continuous experimentation. J. Inf. Softw. Technol. (2017, under submission)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Spärck Jones, K.: Automatic summarising: the state of the art. Inf. Process. Manage. 43(6), 1449–1481 (2007)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Sridhara, G.: Automatic generation of descriptive summary comments for methods in object-oriented programs. PhD thesis, Newark (2012). AAI3499878Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sridhara, G., Hill, E., Muppaneni, D., Pollock, L., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Towards automatically generating summary comments for java methods. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 43–52. ACM, Piscataway (2010)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Sridhara, G., Pollock, L., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Automatically detecting and describing high level actions within methods. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 101–110. IEEE, Piscataway (2011)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Sridhara, G., Pollock, L., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Generating parameter comments and integrating with method summaries. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), pp. 71–80. IEEE, Piscataway (2011)Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Stefan, P., Horky, V., Bulej, L., Tuma, P.: Unit testing performance in java projects: are we there yet? In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/SPEC on International Conference on Performance Engineering, ICPE ’17, pp. 401–412. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Tu, Z., Su, Z., Devanbu, P.: On the localness of software. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2014, pp. 269–280. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    VanHilst, M., Huang, S., Mulcahy, J., Ballantyne, W., Suarez-Rivero, E., Harwood, D.: Measuring effort in a corporate repository. In: IRI, pp. 246–252. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, Piscataway (2011)Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Vassallo, C., Panichella, S., Di Penta, M., Canfora, G.: Codes: mining source code descriptions from developers discussions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), pp. 106–109. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Vassallo, C., Zampetti, F., Romano, D., Beller, M., Panichella, A., Di Penta, M., Zaidman, A.: Continuous delivery practices in a large financial organization. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2016, Raleigh, October 2–7, 2016, pp. 519–528 (2016)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Vassallo, C., Schermann, G., Zampetti, F., Romano, D., Leitner, P., Zaidman, A., Di Penta, M., Panichella, S.: A tale of ci build failures: an open source and a financial organization perspective (2017)Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Vithani, T.: Modeling the mobile application development lifecycle. In: Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2014, vol. I, IMECS 2014, pp. 596–600 (2014)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Wong, E., Yang, J., Tan, L.: Autocomment: mining question and answer sites for automatic comment generation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 562–567. IEEE, Piscataway (2013)Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Wu, H.C., Luk, R.W.P., Wong, K.F., Kwok, K.L.: Interpreting tf-idf term weights as making relevance decisions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 26(3), 13 (2008)Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Xie, T., Pei, J.: Mapo: mining api usages from open source repositories. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 54–57. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Zagalsky, A., Barzilay, O., Yehudai, A.: Example overflow: using social media for code recommendation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Recommendation Systems for Software Engineering, pp. 38–42. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2012)Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Zhou, Y., Gu, R., Chen, T., Huang, Z., Panichella, S., Gall, H.C.: Analyzing apis documentation and code to detect directive defects. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, May 20–28, 2017, pp. 27–37 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald Gall
    • 1
  • Carol Alexandru
    • 1
  • Adelina Ciurumelea
    • 1
  • Giovanni Grano
    • 1
  • Christoph Laaber
    • 1
  • Sebastiano Panichella
    • 1
  • Sebastian Proksch
    • 1
  • Gerald Schermann
    • 1
  • Carmine Vassallo
    • 1
  • Jitong Zhao
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Tongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter