Repeated Builds During Code Review: An Empirical Study of the OpenStack Community

Code review is a popular practice where developers critique each others' changes. Since automated builds can identify low-level issues (e.g., syntactic errors, regression bugs), it is not uncommon for software organizations to incorporate automated builds in the code review process. In such code review deployment scenarios, submitted change sets must be approved for integration by both peer code reviewers and automated build bots. Since automated builds may produce an unreliable signal of the status of a change set (e.g., due to ``flaky'' or non-deterministic execution behaviour), code review tools, such as Gerrit, allow developers to request a ``recheck'', which repeats the build process without updating the change set. We conjecture that an unconstrained recheck command will waste time and resources if it is not applied judiciously. To explore how the recheck command is applied in a practical setting, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study of 66,932 code reviews from the OpenStack community. We quantitatively analyze (i) how often build failures are rechecked; (ii) the extent to which invoking recheck changes build failure outcomes; and (iii) how much waste is generated by invoking recheck. We observe that (i) 55% of code reviews invoke the recheck command after a failing build is reported; (ii) invoking the recheck command only changes the outcome of a failing build in 42% of the cases; and (iii) invoking the recheck command increases review waiting time by an average of 2,200% and equates to 187.4 compute years of waste -- enough compute resources to compete with the oldest land living animal on earth.Comment: conferenc

We Don't Need Another Hero? The Impact of "Heroes" on Software Development

A software project has "Hero Developers" when 80% of contributions are delivered by 20% of the developers. Are such heroes a good idea? Are too many heroes bad for software quality? Is it better to have more/less heroes for different kinds of projects? To answer these questions, we studied 661 open source projects from Public open source software (OSS) Github and 171 projects from an Enterprise Github. We find that hero projects are very common. In fact, as projects grow in size, nearly all project become hero projects. These findings motivated us to look more closely at the effects of heroes on software development. Analysis shows that the frequency to close issues and bugs are not significantly affected by the presence of project type (Public or Enterprise). Similarly, the time needed to resolve an issue/bug/enhancement is not affected by heroes or project type. This is a surprising result since, before looking at the data, we expected that increasing heroes on a project will slow down howfast that project reacts to change. However, we do find a statistically significant association between heroes, project types, and enhancement resolution rates. Heroes do not affect enhancement resolution rates in Public projects. However, in Enterprise projects, the more heroes increase the rate at which project complete enhancements. In summary, our empirical results call for a revision of a long-held truism in software engineering. Software heroes are far more common and valuable than suggested by the literature, particularly for medium to large Enterprise developments. Organizations should reflect on better ways to find and retain more of these heroesComment: 8 pages + 1 references, Accepted to International conference on Software Engineering - Software Engineering in Practice, 201

What is the Connection Between Issues, Bugs, and Enhancements? (Lessons Learned from 800+ Software Projects)

Agile teams juggle multiple tasks so professionals are often assigned to multiple projects, especially in service organizations that monitor and maintain a large suite of software for a large user base. If we could predict changes in project conditions changes, then managers could better adjust the staff allocated to those projects.This paper builds such a predictor using data from 832 open source and proprietary applications. Using a time series analysis of the last 4 months of issues, we can forecast how many bug reports and enhancement requests will be generated next month. The forecasts made in this way only require a frequency count of this issue reports (and do not require an historical record of bugs found in the project). That is, this kind of predictive model is very easy to deploy within a project. We hence strongly recommend this method for forecasting future issues, enhancements, and bugs in a project.Comment: Accepted to 2018 International Conference on Software Engineering, at the software engineering in practice track. 10 pages, 10 figure

A Longitudinal Study of Identifying and Paying Down Architectural Debt

Architectural debt is a form of technical debt that derives from the gap between the architectural design of the system as it "should be" compared to "as it is". We measured architecture debt in two ways: 1) in terms of system-wide coupling measures, and 2) in terms of the number and severity of architectural flaws. In recent work it was shown that the amount of architectural debt has a huge impact on software maintainability and evolution. Consequently, detecting and reducing the debt is expected to make software more amenable to change. This paper reports on a longitudinal study of a healthcare communications product created by Brightsquid Secure Communications Corp. This start-up company is facing the typical trade-off problem of desiring responsiveness to change requests, but wanting to avoid the ever-increasing effort that the accumulation of quick-and-dirty changes eventually incurs. In the first stage of the study, we analyzed the status of the "before" system, which indicated the impacts of change requests. This initial study motivated a more in-depth analysis of architectural debt. The results of this analysis were used to motivate a comprehensive refactoring of the software system. The third phase of the study was a follow-on architectural debt analysis which quantified the improvements made. Using this quantitative evidence, augmented by qualitative evidence gathered from in-depth interviews with Brightsquid's architects, we present lessons learned about the costs and benefits of paying down architecture debt in practice.Comment: Submitted to ICSE-SEIP 201