Improving Bug Reporting, Duplicate Detection, and Localization

Chaparro, Oscar

doi:10.1109/icse-c.2017.27

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Além disso, os resultados apontaram que os fornecedores de software apresentam dificuldades específicas no entendimento de um relato de bug. Essas falas corroboram o exposto por Chaparro (2017) em que os fornecedores de software confiam nas informações textuais essenciais dos relatos de bugs para triar e corrigir erros de software. Infelizmente, embora relevantes e úteis, essas informações geralmente estão ausentes, incompletas, superficiais, ambíguas ou complexas, dificultando o entendimento do bug.…”

Section: Resultados Do Protocolo De Entrevistas Semiestruturadasunclassified

A compreensão de reporte de bugs no desenvolvimento e uso de software: uma representação do conhecimento por meio de ontologia

Oliveira¹,

Tenório²,

Bortolozzi³

2022

R. Tecnol. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O conhecimento vem sendo utilizado em diferentes organizações como fonte de lucro e vantagem competitiva. Nesse sentido, a Gestão do Conhecimento (GC) torna-se essencial para apoiar as organizações por meio da criação, armazenamento, recuperação e representação do conhecimento. Nas organizações que trabalham com o desenvolvimento de software, o conhecimento é essencial para que o produto final - o software - satisfaça a necessidade de seus clientes. Entretanto, o desenvolvimento desse sistema é uma tarefa complexa e que envolve conhecimento técnico apurado e um gerenciamento rigoroso por parte da organização, para que sejam respeitados os prazos e custos. Assim, é frequente a entrega de um software ao cliente que contém defeitos, que são comumente denominados de bugs. Quando o cliente identifica bugs no software, ele deve reportar ao fornecedor do produto, para que seja providenciada a sua correção, evitando assim maiores prejuízos. No entanto, o reporte de bug não é estruturado e nem suficiente para o fornecedor do software entender e solucionar o problema, fazendo-se necessárias diversas interações entre o cliente e o fornecedor. Portanto, o objetivo deste artigo é validar uma ontologia no sentido de aprimorar a compreensão de reportes de bugs durante o desenvolvimento e o uso de um software. Esta pesquisa caracteriza-se como de natureza aplicada com característica mista de procedimentos descritivo e exploratório. A pesquisa foi delineada em duas fases: A primeira fase da pesquisa consistiu no estudo qualitativo e quantitativo. A segunda fase, os resultados apresentam quatro ontologias modeladas para reportes de bug e a validação dessas ontologias por meio da sua extração em forma textual.

show abstract

Section: Resultados Do Protocolo De Entrevistas Semiestruturadasunclassified

A compreensão de reporte de bugs no desenvolvimento e uso de software: uma representação do conhecimento por meio de ontologia

Oliveira¹,

Tenório²,

Bortolozzi³

2022

R. Tecnol. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The author in [30] used the topic-based model LDA for identifying the topics from the bug report which were further used for the feature vector construction for the purpose of training the model. The author in [31] along with the NLP used the SVM to analyze whether the Expected Behavior and steps2reproduce are missing or not. They also trained their model with 10 fold SVM after finding the discourse patterns, N-grams and Part Of Speech.…”

Section: A Information-retrieval Basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The author in [31] used the discourse based analysis of observed behavior, expected behavior, steps2reproduce to analyze the semantic and syntax of the bug report. They used the part of speech tagging and dependency parsing for finding the discourse patterns.…”

Section: B Natural Language Processing Basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Study of Duplicate Bug Report Detection

Gupta¹,

Gupta²

2021

IJACSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defects are an integral part of any software project. They can arise at any time, at any phase of the software development or the maintenance phase. In open source projects, open bug repositories are used to maintain the bug reports. When a new bug report arrives, a person called "Triager" analyzes the bug report and assign it to some responsible developer. But before assigning, has to look if it is duplicate or not. Duplicate Bug Report is one of the big problems in the maintenance of bug repositories. Lack of knowledge and vocabulary skills of reporters sometimes increases the effort required for this purpose. Bug Tracking Systems are usually used to maintain the bug reports and are the most consulted resource during the maintenance process. Because of the Uncoordinated nature of the submission of bug reports to the tracking system, many times the same bug report is reported by many users. Duplicate Bug Reports lead to the waste of resources and the economy. It creates problems for triagers and requires a lot of analysis and validation. Lot of work has been done in the field of duplicate bug report detection. In this paper, we present the researches systematically done in this field by classifying the works into three categories and listing down the methods being used for the classified researches. The paper considers the papers till January 2020 for the analysis purpose. The paper mentions the strengths, limitations, data set, and the major approach used by the popular papers of the research in this field. The paper also lists the challenges and future directions in this field of research.

show abstract

“…We eliminated studies targeting general purpose task-assignment, 26,27 applying BA methods in code reviewer recommendation, 28 bug fix time prediction, 29,30 tool-development for BA with no reported accuracy, 31 and bug-triaging ‖ related studies other than BA, including bug report deduplication, 32,33 bug report classification, 34 bug localization, [35][36][37] component-assignment (recommending a component for a given bug report), 38,39 and investigating problems of assignment and reassignment of bugs. ** 40,41 † https://dl.acm.org/dl.cfm ‡ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp § https://www.sciencedirect.com/ ¶ https://link.springer.com/ # We defined the threshold as high as 100 to make sure that we do not miss any important paper.…”

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for evaluating bug‐assignment research

Sajedi‐Badashian

Stroulia

2020

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bug assignment is the task of ranking candidate developers in terms of their potential competence to fix a bug report. Numerous methods have been developed to address this task, relying on different methodological assumptions and demonstrating their effectiveness with a variety of empirical studies with numerous data sets and evaluation criteria. Despite the importance of the subject and the attention it has received from researchers, there is still no unanimity on how to validate and comparatively evaluate bug‐assignment methods and, often times, methods reported in the literature are not reproducible. In this paper, we first report on our systematic review of the broad bug‐assignment research field. Next, we focus on a few key empirical studies and review their choices with respect to three important experimental‐design parameters, namely, the evaluation metric(s) they report, their definition of who the real assignee is, and the community of developers they consider as candidate assignees. The substantial variability on these criteria led us to formulate a systematic experiment to explore the impact of these choices. We conducted our experiment on a comprehensive data set of bugs we collected from 13 long‐term open‐source projects, using a simple Tf‐IDf similarity metric. On the basis of our arguments and/or experiments, we provide useful guidelines for performing further bug‐assignment research. We conclude that mean average precision (MAP) is the most informative evaluation metric, the developer community should be defined as “all the project members,” and the real assignee should be defined as “any developer who worked toward fixing a bug.”

show abstract

Improving Bug Reporting, Duplicate Detection, and Localization

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

A compreensão de reporte de bugs no desenvolvimento e uso de software: uma representação do conhecimento por meio de ontologia

A compreensão de reporte de bugs no desenvolvimento e uso de software: uma representação do conhecimento por meio de ontologia

A Systematic Study of Duplicate Bug Report Detection

Guidelines for evaluating bug‐assignment research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About