Automatically Extracting Instances of Code Change Patterns with AST Analysis

Martínez, Matías; Duchien, Laurence; Monperrus, Martin

doi:10.1109/icsm.2013.54

Cited by 39 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other fix patterns involve missing method invocations and wrong names for objects, methods, or parameters. Other studies [10], [11], pointed out similar findings.…”

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 70%

Analyzing the Context of Bug-Fixing Changes in the OpenStack Cloud Computing Platform

Cotroneo

Simone

Iannillo

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE 30th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many research areas in software engineering, such as mutation testing, automatic repair, fault localization, and fault injection, rely on empirical knowledge about recurring bug-fixing code changes. Previous studies in this field focus on what has been changed due to bug-fixes, such as in terms of code edit actions. However, such studies did not consider where the bug-fix change was made (i.e., the context of the change), but knowing about the context can potentially narrow the search space for many software engineering techniques (e.g., by focusing mutation only on specific parts of the software). Furthermore, most previous work on bug-fixing changes focused on C and Java projects, but there is little empirical evidence about Python software. Therefore, in this paper we perform a thorough empirical analysis of bug-fixing changes in three OpenStack projects, focusing on both the what and the where of the changes. We observed that all the recurring change patterns are not oblivious with respect to the surrounding code, but tend to occur in specific code contexts.

show abstract

“…Other fix patterns involve missing method invocations and wrong names for objects, methods, or parameters. Other studies [10], [11], pointed out similar findings.…”

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 70%

Analyzing the Context of Bug-Fixing Changes in the OpenStack Cloud Computing Platform

Cotroneo

Simone

Iannillo

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE 30th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Martinez et al [9] came up with a new approach for specifying and finding change patterns based on AST differencing. They evaluated their approach by counting 18 change patterns from [6] on 6 open-source projects.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mining frequent bug-fix code changes

Osman

Lungu

Nierstrasz

2014

2014 Software Evolution Week - IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Detecting bugs as early as possible plays an important role in ensuring software quality before shipping. We argue that mining previous bug fixes can produce good knowledge about why bugs happen and how they are fixed.In this paper, we mine the change history of 717 open source projects to extract bug-fix patterns. We also manually inspect many of the bugs we found to get insights into the contexts and reasons behind those bugs. For instance, we found out that missing null checks and missing initializations are very recurrent and we believe that they can be automatically detected and fixed.

show abstract

“…For example, the bug 45311 on Xamarin Android project 13 is a common bug in Java: given a class field name javaU rl, and a formal argument from a method also called javaU rl, then the assignment javaU rl = javaU rl; does not affect the field. The fix consisted on adding the this keyword on the left-part of the buggy assignment 14 . The complexity and constant evolution of mobile platforms such as Android or iOS, and the large diversity of mobile devices in the wild involve that cross-platform mobile app development frameworks must evolve at the same speed, involving the potential creation of new bugs.…”

Section: B Studying Bugs and Fixes Of Mobile Appsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the Quality Improvement of Cross-Platform Mobile Applications

Martínez¹,

Lecomte²

2017

2017 IEEE/ACM 4th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems (MOBILESoft)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-During last ten years, the number of smartphones and mobile applications has been constantly growing. Android, iOS and Windows Mobile are three mobile platforms that cover almost all smartphones in the world in 2017. Developing a mobile app involves first to choose the platforms the app will run, and then to develop specific solutions (i.e., native apps) for each chosen platform using platform-related toolkits such as Android SDK. A cross-platform mobile application is an app that runs on two or more mobile platforms. Several frameworks have been proposed to simplify the development of cross-platform mobile applications and to reduce development and maintenance costs. They are called cross-platform mobile app development frameworks. However, to our knowledge, the life-cycle and the quality of crossplatforms mobile applications built using those frameworks have not been studied in depth. Our main goal is to first study the processes of development and maintenance of mobile applications built using cross-platform mobile app development frameworks, focusing particularly on the bug-fixing activity. Then, we aim at defining tools for automated repairing bugs from cross-platform mobile applications.

show abstract

Automatically Extracting Instances of Code Change Patterns with AST Analysis

Cited by 39 publications

References 9 publications

Analyzing the Context of Bug-Fixing Changes in the OpenStack Cloud Computing Platform

Analyzing the Context of Bug-Fixing Changes in the OpenStack Cloud Computing Platform

Mining frequent bug-fix code changes

Towards the Quality Improvement of Cross-Platform Mobile Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About