A Systematic Review of the Literature of the Techniques to Perform Transformations in Software Engineering / Uma revisão sistemática da literatura das técnicas para realizar transformações na engenharia de software

Along with software evolution, developers may do repetitive edits. These edits can be identical or similar to different codebase locations, which may occur as developers add features, refactor, or fix a bug. Since some of these edits are not present in Integrated Development Environments (IDEs), they are often performed manually, which is time-consuming and error-prone. In order to help developers to apply repetitive edits, some techniques were proposed. In this work, we present a systematic review of the literature of the techniques to do transformations in software engineering. As a result, this systematic review returned 51 works ranging from the domains programming-by-examples, linked editing, API usage, bug fixing, complex refactoring, and complex transformations, which can be used to help tools' designer in the proposition of new approaches.  Along with software evolution, developers may do repetitive edits. These edits can be identical or similar to different codebase locations, which may occur as developers add features, refactor, or fix a bug. Since some of these edits are not present in Integrated Development Environments (IDEs), they are often performed manually, which is time-consuming and error-prone. In order to help developers to apply repetitive edits, some techniques were proposed. In this work, we present a systematic review of the literature of the techniques to do transformations in software engineering. As a result, this systematic review returned 51 works ranging from the domains programming-by-examples, linked editing, API usage, bug fixing, complex refactoring, and complex transformations, which can be used to help tools' designer in the proposition of new approaches.

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

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

Mining System Specific Rules from Change Patterns

International audienceA significant percentage of warnings reported by tools to detect coding standard violations are false positives. Thus, there are some works dedicated to provide better rules by mining them from source code history, analyzing bug-fixes or changes between system releases. However, software evolves over time, and during development not only bugs are fixed, but also features are added, and code is refactored. In such cases, changes must be consistently applied in source code to avoid maintenance problems. In this paper, we propose to extract system specific rules by mining systematic changes over source code history, i.e., not just from bug-fixes or system releases, to ensure that changes are consistently applied over source code. We focus on structural changes done to support API modification or evolution with the goal of providing better rules to developers. Also, rules are mined from predefined rule patterns that ensure their quality. In order to assess the precision of such specific rules to detect real violations, we compare them with generic rules provided by tools to detect coding standard violations on four real world systems covering two programming languages. The results show that specific rules are more precise in identifying real violations in source code than generic ones, and thus can complement them

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