To ensure code readability and facilitate software maintenance, program methods must be named properly. In particular, method names must be consistent with the corresponding method implementations. Debugging method names remains an important topic in the literature, where various approaches analyze commonalities among method names in a large dataset to detect inconsistent method names and suggest better ones. We note that the state-of-the-art does not analyze the implemented code itself to assess consistency. We thus propose a novel automated approach to debugging method names based on the analysis of consistency between method names and method code. The approach leverages deep feature representation techniques adapted to the nature of each artifact. Experimental results on over 2.1 million Java methods show that we can achieve up to 15 percentage points improvement over the stateof-the-art, establishing a record performance of 67.9% F1measure in identifying inconsistent method names. We further demonstrate that our approach yields up to 25% accuracy in suggesting full names, while the state-of-the-art lags far behind at 1.1% accuracy. Finally, we report on our success in fixing 66 inconsistent method names in a live study on projects in the wild. Index Terms-Code refactoring, inconsistent method names, deep learning, code embedding. "If you have a good name for a method, you don't need to look at the body."-Fowler et al. [1] * Corresponding authors. public boolean containsField(Field f){ return fieldsList.contains(f);} private ResolvedMember findField(ResolvedType resolvedType,String fieldName){ for(ResolvedMember field : resolvedType.getDeclaredFields()){ if (field.getName().equals(fieldName)){ return field;}} return null;} public Field containsField(String name){ for(Iterator e = this.field_vec.iterator(); e.hasNext();){ Field f = (Field) e.next(); if (f.getName().equals(name)){ return f;}} return null;}

Test-based automated program repair has been a prolific field of research in software engineering in the last decade. Many approaches have indeed been proposed, which leverage test suites as a weak, but affordable, approximation to program specifications. Although the

Automated program repair (APR) has extensively been developed by leveraging search-based techniques, in which fix ingredients are explored and identified in different granularities from a specific search space. State-of-the approaches often find fix ingredients by using mutation operators or leveraging manually-crafted templates. We argue that the fix ingredients can be searched in an online mode, leveraging code search techniques to find potentially-fixed versions of buggy code fragments from which repair actions can be extracted. In this study, we present an APR tool, LSRepair, that automatically explores code repositories to search for fix ingredients at the method-level granularity with three strategies of similar code search. Our preliminary evaluation shows that code search can drive a faster fix process (some bugs are fixed in a few seconds). LSRepair helps repair 19 bugs from the Defects4J benchmark successfully. We expect our approach to open new directions for fixing multiple-lines bugs.

Source code terms such as method names and variable types are often different from conceptual words mentioned in a search query. This vocabulary mismatch problem can make code search inefficient. In this paper, we present COde voCABUlary (CoCaBu), an approach to resolving the vocabulary mismatch problem when dealing with free-form code search queries. Our approach leverages common developer questions and the associated expert answers to augment user queries with the relevant, but missing, structural code entities in order to improve the performance of matching relevant code examples within large code repositories. To instantiate this approach, we build GitSearch, a code search engine, on top of GitHub and Stack Overflow Q&A data. We evaluate GitSearch in several dimensions to demonstrate that (1) its code search results are correct with respect to user-accepted answers; (2) the results are qualitatively better than those of existing Internet-scale code search engines; (3) our engine is competitive against web search engines, such as Google, in helping users complete solve programming tasks; and (4) GitSearch provides code examples that are acceptable or interesting to the community as answers for Stack Overflow questions.

No abstract