You Cannot Fix What You Cannot Find! An Investigation of Fault Localization Bias in Benchmarking Automated Program Repair Systems

Properly benchmarking Automated Program Repair (APR) systems should contribute to the development and adoption of the research outputs by practitioners. To that end, the research community must ensure that it reaches significant milestones by reliably comparing state-of-the-art tools for a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we identify and investigate a practical bias caused by the fault localization (FL) step in a repair pipeline. We propose to highlight the different fault localization configurations used in the literature, and their impact on APR systems when applied to the Defects4J benchmark. Then, we explore the performance variations that can be achieved by `tweaking' the FL step. Eventually, we expect to create a new momentum for (1) full disclosure of APR experimental procedures with respect to FL, (2) realistic expectations of repairing bugs in Defects4J, as well as (3) reliable performance comparison among the state-of-the-art APR systems, and against the baseline performance results of our thoroughly assessed kPAR repair tool. Our main findings include: (a) only a subset of Defects4J bugs can be currently localized by commonly-used FL techniques; (b) current practice of comparing state-of-the-art APR systems (i.e., counting the number of fixed bugs) is potentially misleading due to the bias of FL configurations; and (c) APR authors do not properly qualify their performance achievement with respect to the different tuning parameters implemented in APR systems.Comment: Accepted by ICST 201

Dissection of a Bug Dataset: Anatomy of 395 Patches from Defects4J

Well-designed and publicly available datasets of bugs are an invaluable asset to advance research fields such as fault localization and program repair as they allow directly and fairly comparison between competing techniques and also the replication of experiments. These datasets need to be deeply understood by researchers: the answer for questions like "which bugs can my technique handle?" and "for which bugs is my technique effective?" depends on the comprehension of properties related to bugs and their patches. However, such properties are usually not included in the datasets, and there is still no widely adopted methodology for characterizing bugs and patches. In this work, we deeply study 395 patches of the Defects4J dataset. Quantitative properties (patch size and spreading) were automatically extracted, whereas qualitative ones (repair actions and patterns) were manually extracted using a thematic analysis-based approach. We found that 1) the median size of Defects4J patches is four lines, and almost 30% of the patches contain only addition of lines; 2) 92% of the patches change only one file, and 38% has no spreading at all; 3) the top-3 most applied repair actions are addition of method calls, conditionals, and assignments, occurring in 77% of the patches; and 4) nine repair patterns were found for 95% of the patches, where the most prevalent, appearing in 43% of the patches, is on conditional blocks. These results are useful for researchers to perform advanced analysis on their techniques' results based on Defects4J. Moreover, our set of properties can be used to characterize and compare different bug datasets.Comment: Accepted for SANER'18 (25th edition of IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering), Campobasso, Ital

Automated Fixing of Programs with Contracts

This paper describes AutoFix, an automatic debugging technique that can fix faults in general-purpose software. To provide high-quality fix suggestions and to enable automation of the whole debugging process, AutoFix relies on the presence of simple specification elements in the form of contracts (such as pre- and postconditions). Using contracts enhances the precision of dynamic analysis techniques for fault detection and localization, and for validating fixes. The only required user input to the AutoFix supporting tool is then a faulty program annotated with contracts; the tool produces a collection of validated fixes for the fault ranked according to an estimate of their suitability. In an extensive experimental evaluation, we applied AutoFix to over 200 faults in four code bases of different maturity and quality (of implementation and of contracts). AutoFix successfully fixed 42% of the faults, producing, in the majority of cases, corrections of quality comparable to those competent programmers would write; the used computational resources were modest, with an average time per fix below 20 minutes on commodity hardware. These figures compare favorably to the state of the art in automated program fixing, and demonstrate that the AutoFix approach is successfully applicable to reduce the debugging burden in real-world scenarios.Comment: Minor changes after proofreadin

Automatic Software Repair: a Bibliography

This article presents a survey on automatic software repair. Automatic software repair consists of automatically finding a solution to software bugs without human intervention. This article considers all kinds of repairs. First, it discusses behavioral repair where test suites, contracts, models, and crashing inputs are taken as oracle. Second, it discusses state repair, also known as runtime repair or runtime recovery, with techniques such as checkpoint and restart, reconfiguration, and invariant restoration. The uniqueness of this article is that it spans the research communities that contribute to this body of knowledge: software engineering, dependability, operating systems, programming languages, and security. It provides a novel and structured overview of the diversity of bug oracles and repair operators used in the literature

Automatic Repair of Real Bugs: An Experience Report on the Defects4J Dataset

Defects4J is a large, peer-reviewed, structured dataset of real-world Java bugs. Each bug in Defects4J is provided with a test suite and at least one failing test case that triggers the bug. In this paper, we report on an experiment to explore the effectiveness of automatic repair on Defects4J. The result of our experiment shows that 47 bugs of the Defects4J dataset can be automatically repaired by state-of- the-art repair. This sets a baseline for future research on automatic repair for Java. We have manually analyzed 84 different patches to assess their real correctness. In total, 9 real Java bugs can be correctly fixed with test-suite based repair. This analysis shows that test-suite based repair suffers from under-specified bugs, for which trivial and incorrect patches still pass the test suite. With respect to practical applicability, it takes in average 14.8 minutes to find a patch. The experiment was done on a scientific grid, totaling 17.6 days of computation time. All their systems and experimental results are publicly available on Github in order to facilitate future research on automatic repair

Dynamic Analysis can be Improved with Automatic Test Suite Refactoring

Context: Developers design test suites to automatically verify that software meets its expected behaviors. Many dynamic analysis techniques are performed on the exploitation of execution traces from test cases. However, in practice, there is only one trace that results from the execution of one manually-written test case. Objective: In this paper, we propose a new technique of test suite refactoring, called B-Refactoring. The idea behind B-Refactoring is to split a test case into small test fragments, which cover a simpler part of the control flow to provide better support for dynamic analysis. Method: For a given dynamic analysis technique, our test suite refactoring approach monitors the execution of test cases and identifies small test cases without loss of the test ability. We apply B-Refactoring to assist two existing analysis tasks: automatic repair of if-statements bugs and automatic analysis of exception contracts. Results: Experimental results show that test suite refactoring can effectively simplify the execution traces of the test suite. Three real-world bugs that could previously not be fixed with the original test suite are fixed after applying B-Refactoring; meanwhile, exception contracts are better verified via applying B-Refactoring to original test suites. Conclusions: We conclude that applying B-Refactoring can effectively improve the purity of test cases. Existing dynamic analysis tasks can be enhanced by test suite refactoring