A First Look at the Deprecation of RESTful APIs: An Empirical Study

REpresentational State Transfer (REST) is considered as one standard software architectural style to build web APIs that can integrate software systems over the internet. However, while connecting systems, RESTful APIs might also break the dependent applications that rely on their services when they introduce breaking changes, e.g., an older version of the API is no longer supported. To warn developers promptly and thus prevent critical impact on downstream applications, a deprecated-removed model should be followed, and deprecation-related information such as alternative approaches should also be listed. While API deprecation analysis as a theme is not new, most existing work focuses on non-web APIs, such as the ones provided by Java and Android. To investigate RESTful API deprecation, we propose a framework called RADA (RESTful API Deprecation Analyzer). RADA is capable of automatically identifying deprecated API elements and analyzing impacted operations from an OpenAPI specification, a machine-readable profile for describing RESTful web service. We apply RADA on 2,224 OpenAPI specifications of 1,368 RESTful APIs collected from APIs.guru, the largest directory of OpenAPI specifications. Based on the data mined by RADA, we perform an empirical study to investigate how the deprecated-removed protocol is followed in RESTful APIs and characterize practices in RESTful API deprecation. The results of our study reveal several severe deprecation-related problems in existing RESTful APIs. Our implementation of RADA and detailed empirical results are publicly available for future intelligent tools that could automatically identify and migrate usage of deprecated RESTful API operations in client code

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

Why Do Developers Get Password Storage Wrong? A Qualitative Usability Study

Passwords are still a mainstay of various security systems, as well as the cause of many usability issues. For end-users, many of these issues have been studied extensively, highlighting problems and informing design decisions for better policies and motivating research into alternatives. However, end-users are not the only ones who have usability problems with passwords! Developers who are tasked with writing the code by which passwords are stored must do so securely. Yet history has shown that this complex task often fails due to human error with catastrophic results. While an end-user who selects a bad password can have dire consequences, the consequences of a developer who forgets to hash and salt a password database can lead to far larger problems. In this paper we present a first qualitative usability study with 20 computer science students to discover how developers deal with password storage and to inform research into aiding developers in the creation of secure password systems

Repairing Deep Neural Networks: Fix Patterns and Challenges

Significant interest in applying Deep Neural Network (DNN) has fueled the need to support engineering of software that uses DNNs. Repairing software that uses DNNs is one such unmistakable SE need where automated tools could be beneficial; however, we do not fully understand challenges to repairing and patterns that are utilized when manually repairing DNNs. What challenges should automated repair tools address? What are the repair patterns whose automation could help developers? Which repair patterns should be assigned a higher priority for building automated bug repair tools? This work presents a comprehensive study of bug fix patterns to address these questions. We have studied 415 repairs from Stack overflow and 555 repairs from Github for five popular deep learning libraries Caffe, Keras, Tensorflow, Theano, and Torch to understand challenges in repairs and bug repair patterns. Our key findings reveal that DNN bug fix patterns are distinctive compared to traditional bug fix patterns; the most common bug fix patterns are fixing data dimension and neural network connectivity; DNN bug fixes have the potential to introduce adversarial vulnerabilities; DNN bug fixes frequently introduce new bugs; and DNN bug localization, reuse of trained model, and coping with frequent releases are major challenges faced by developers when fixing bugs. We also contribute a benchmark of 667 DNN (bug, repair) instances

A Quantitative Study of Java Software Buildability

Researchers, students and practitioners often encounter a situation when the build process of a third-party software system fails. In this paper, we aim to confirm this observation present mainly as anecdotal evidence so far. Using a virtual environment simulating a programmer's one, we try to fully automatically build target archives from the source code of over 7,200 open source Java projects. We found that more than 38% of builds ended in failure. Build log analysis reveals the largest portion of errors are dependency-related. We also conduct an association study of factors affecting build success

Web API Fragility: How Robust is Your Web API Client

Web APIs provide a systematic and extensible approach for application-to-application interaction. A large number of mobile applications makes use of web APIs to integrate services into apps. Each Web API's evolution pace is determined by their respective developer and mobile application developers are forced to accompany the API providers in their software evolution tasks. In this paper we investigate whether mobile application developers understand and how they deal with the added distress of web APIs evolving. In particular, we studied how robust 48 high profile mobile applications are when dealing with mutated web API responses. Additionally, we interviewed three mobile application developers to better understand their choices and trade-offs regarding web API integration.Comment: Technical repor

Policy Enforcement with Proactive Libraries

Software libraries implement APIs that deliver reusable functionalities. To correctly use these functionalities, software applications must satisfy certain correctness policies, for instance policies about the order some API methods can be invoked and about the values that can be used for the parameters. If these policies are violated, applications may produce misbehaviors and failures at runtime. Although this problem is general, applications that incorrectly use API methods are more frequent in certain contexts. For instance, Android provides a rich and rapidly evolving set of APIs that might be used incorrectly by app developers who often implement and publish faulty apps in the marketplaces. To mitigate this problem, we introduce the novel notion of proactive library, which augments classic libraries with the capability of proactively detecting and healing misuses at run- time. Proactive libraries blend libraries with multiple proactive modules that collect data, check the correctness policies of the libraries, and heal executions as soon as the violation of a correctness policy is detected. The proactive modules can be activated or deactivated at runtime by the users and can be implemented without requiring any change to the original library and any knowledge about the applications that may use the library. We evaluated proactive libraries in the context of the Android ecosystem. Results show that proactive libraries can automati- cally overcome several problems related to bad resource usage at the cost of a small overhead.Comment: O. Riganelli, D. Micucci and L. Mariani, "Policy Enforcement with Proactive Libraries" 2017 IEEE/ACM 12th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2017, pp. 182-19

Why and How Java Developers Break APIs

Modern software development depends on APIs to reuse code and increase productivity. As most software systems, these libraries and frameworks also evolve, which may break existing clients. However, the main reasons to introduce breaking changes in APIs are unclear. Therefore, in this paper, we report the results of an almost 4-month long field study with the developers of 400 popular Java libraries and frameworks. We configured an infrastructure to observe all changes in these libraries and to detect breaking changes shortly after their introduction in the code. After identifying breaking changes, we asked the developers to explain the reasons behind their decision to change the APIs. During the study, we identified 59 breaking changes, confirmed by the developers of 19 projects. By analyzing the developers' answers, we report that breaking changes are mostly motivated by the need to implement new features, by the desire to make the APIs simpler and with fewer elements, and to improve maintainability. We conclude by providing suggestions to language designers, tool builders, software engineering researchers and API developers.Comment: Accepted at International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2018; 11 page