DRONE : a tool to detect and repair directive defects in Java APIs documentation

Application programming interfaces (APIs) documentation is the official reference of the APIs. Defects in API documentation pose serious hurdles to their comprehension and usage. In this paper, we present DRONE, a tool that can automatically detect the directive defects in APIs documents and recommend repair solutions to fix them. Particularly, DRONE focuses on four defect types related to parameter usage constraints. To achieve this, DRONE leverages techniques from static program analysis, natural language processing and logic reasoning. The implementation is based on the Eclipse-plugin architecture, which provides an integrated user interface. Extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of the tool

Classification of changes in API evolution

Applications typically communicate with each other, accessing and exposing data and features by using Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Even though API consumers expect APIs to be steady and well established, APIs are prone to continuous changes, experiencing different evolutive phases through their lifecycle. These changes are of different types, caused by different needs and are affecting consumers in different ways. In this paper, we identify and classify the changes that often happen to APIs, and investigate how all these changes are reflected in the documentation, release notes, issue tracker and API usage logs. The analysis of each step of a change, from its implementation to the impact that it has on API consumers, will help us to have a bigger picture of API evolution. Thus, we review the current state of the art in API evolution and, as a result, we define a classification framework considering both the changes that may occur to APIs and the reasons behind them. In addition, we exemplify the framework using a software platform offering a Web API, called District Health Information System (DHIS2), used collaboratively by several departments of World Health Organization (WHO).Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Automatic detection and repair of directive defects of Java APIs documentation

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) represent key tools for software developers to build complex software systems. However, several studies have revealed that even major API providers tend to have incomplete or inconsistent API documentation. This can severely hamper the API comprehension and as a consequence the quality of the software built on them. In this paper, we propose DRONE (Detect and Repair of dOcumentatioN dEfects), a framework to automatically detect and repair defects from API documents by leveraging techniques from program analysis, natural language processing, and constraint solving. Specifically, we target at the directives of API documents, which are related to parameter constraints and exception handling declarations. Furthermore, in presence of defects, we also provide a prototypical repair recommendation system. We evaluate our approach on parts of the well-documented APIs of JDK 1.8 APIs (including javaFX) and Android 7.0 (level 24). Across the two empirical studies, our approach can detect API defects with an average F-measure of 79.9%, 71.7%, and 81.4%, respectively. The API repairing capability has also been evaluated on the generated recommendations in a further experiment. User judgements indicate that the constraint information is addressed correctly and concisely in the rendered directives

Beyond Accuracy: Assessing Software Documentation Quality

Good software documentation encourages good software engineering, but the meaning of "good" documentation is vaguely defined in the software engineering literature. To clarify this ambiguity, we draw on work from the data and information quality community to propose a framework that decomposes documentation quality into ten dimensions of structure, content, and style. To demonstrate its application, we recruited technical editors to apply the framework when evaluating examples from several genres of software documentation. We summarise their assessments -- for example, reference documentation and README files excel in quality whereas blog articles have more problems -- and we describe our vision for reasoning about software documentation quality and for the expansion and potential of a unified quality framework.Comment: to appear in the Visions and Reflections Track of the ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering 202

A Decade of Code Comment Quality Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review

Code comments are important artifacts in software systems and play a paramount role in many software engineering (SE) tasks related to maintenance and program comprehension. However, while it is widely accepted that high quality matters in code comments just as it matters in source code, assessing comment quality in practice is still an open problem. First and foremost, there is no unique definition of quality when it comes to evaluating code comments. The few existing studies on this topic rather focus on specific attributes of quality that can be easily quantified and measured. Existing techniques and corresponding tools may also focus on comments bound to a specific programming language, and may only deal with comments with specific scopes and clear goals (e.g., Javadoc comments at the method level, or in-body comments describing TODOs to be addressed). In this paper, we present a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of the last decade of research in SE to answer the following research questions: (i) What types of comments do researchers focus on when assessing comment quality? (ii) What quality attributes (QAs) do they consider? (iii) Which tools and techniques do they use to assess comment quality?, and (iv) How do they evaluate their studies on comment quality assessment in general? Our evaluation, based on the analysis of 2353 papers and the actual review of 47 relevant ones, shows that (i) most studies and techniques focus on comments in Java code, thus may not be generalizable to other languages, and (ii) the analyzed studies focus on four main QAs of a total of 21 QAs identified in the literature, with a clear predominance of checking consistency between comments and the code. We observe that researchers rely on manual assessment and specific heuristics rather than the automated assessment of the comment quality attributes

Data-Driven Decisions and Actions in Today’s Software Development

Today’s software development is all about data: data about the software product itself, about the process and its different stages, about the customers and markets, about the development, the testing, the integration, the deployment, or the runtime aspects in the cloud. We use static and dynamic data of various kinds and quantities to analyze market feedback, feature impact, code quality, architectural design alternatives, or effects of performance optimizations. Development environments are no longer limited to IDEs in a desktop application or the like but span the Internet using live programming environments such as Cloud9 or large-volume repositories such as BitBucket, GitHub, GitLab, or StackOverflow. Software development has become “live” in the cloud, be it the coding, the testing, or the experimentation with different product options on the Internet. The inherent complexity puts a further burden on developers, since they need to stay alert when constantly switching between tasks in different phases. Research has been analyzing the development process, its data and stakeholders, for decades and is working on various tools that can help developers in their daily tasks to improve the quality of their work and their productivity. In this chapter, we critically reflect on the challenges faced by developers in a typical release cycle, identify inherent problems of the individual phases, and present the current state of the research that can help overcome these issues