FixMiner: Mining Relevant Fix Patterns for Automated Program Repair

Patching is a common activity in software development. It is generally performed on a source code base to address bugs or add new functionalities. In this context, given the recurrence of bugs across projects, the associated similar patches can be leveraged to extract generic fix actions. While the literature includes various approaches leveraging similarity among patches to guide program repair, these approaches often do not yield fix patterns that are tractable and reusable as actionable input to APR systems. In this paper, we propose a systematic and automated approach to mining relevant and actionable fix patterns based on an iterative clustering strategy applied to atomic changes within patches. The goal of FixMiner is thus to infer separate and reusable fix patterns that can be leveraged in other patch generation systems. Our technique, FixMiner, leverages Rich Edit Script which is a specialized tree structure of the edit scripts that captures the AST-level context of the code changes. FixMiner uses different tree representations of Rich Edit Scripts for each round of clustering to identify similar changes. These are abstract syntax trees, edit actions trees, and code context trees. We have evaluated FixMiner on thousands of software patches collected from open source projects. Preliminary results show that we are able to mine accurate patterns, efficiently exploiting change information in Rich Edit Scripts. We further integrated the mined patterns to an automated program repair prototype, PARFixMiner, with which we are able to correctly fix 26 bugs of the Defects4J benchmark. Beyond this quantitative performance, we show that the mined fix patterns are sufficiently relevant to produce patches with a high probability of correctness: 81% of PARFixMiner's generated plausible patches are correct.Comment: 31 pages, 11 figure

Automatically Discovering, Reporting and Reproducing Android Application Crashes

Mobile developers face unique challenges when detecting and reporting crashes in apps due to their prevailing GUI event-driven nature and additional sources of inputs (e.g., sensor readings). To support developers in these tasks, we introduce a novel, automated approach called CRASHSCOPE. This tool explores a given Android app using systematic input generation, according to several strategies informed by static and dynamic analyses, with the intrinsic goal of triggering crashes. When a crash is detected, CRASHSCOPE generates an augmented crash report containing screenshots, detailed crash reproduction steps, the captured exception stack trace, and a fully replayable script that automatically reproduces the crash on a target device(s). We evaluated CRASHSCOPE's effectiveness in discovering crashes as compared to five state-of-the-art Android input generation tools on 61 applications. The results demonstrate that CRASHSCOPE performs about as well as current tools for detecting crashes and provides more detailed fault information. Additionally, in a study analyzing eight real-world Android app crashes, we found that CRASHSCOPE's reports are easily readable and allow for reliable reproduction of crashes by presenting more explicit information than human written reports.Comment: 12 pages, in Proceedings of 9th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST'16), Chicago, IL, April 10-15, 2016, pp. 33-4

Categorizing and predicting reopened bug reports to improve software reliability

Software maintenance takes two thirds of the life cycle of the project. Bug fixes are an important part of software maintenance. Bugs are tracked using online tools like Bugzilla. It has been noted that around 10% of fixes are buggy fixes. Many bugs are documented as fixed when they are not actually fixed, thus reducing the reliability of the software. The overlooked bugs are critical as they take more resources to fix when discovered, and since they are not documented, the reality is that defect are still present and reduce reliability of software. There have been very few studies in understanding these bugs. The best way to understand these bugs is to mine software repositories. To generalize findings we need a large number of bug information and a wide category of software projects. To solve the problem, a web crawler collected around a million bug reports from online repositories, and extracted important attributes of the bug reports. We selected four algorithms: Bayesian network, NaiveBayes, C4.5 decision tree, and Alternating decision tree. We achieved a decent amount of accuracy in predicting reopened bugs across a wide range of projects. Using AdaBoost, we analyzed the most important factors responsible for the bugs and categorized them in three categories of reputation of committer, complex units, and insufficient knowledge of defect