Using standard typing algorithms incrementally

Modern languages are equipped with static type checking/inference that helps programmers to keep a clean programming style and to reduce errors. However, the ever-growing size of programs and their continuous evolution require building fast and efficient analysers. A promising solution is incrementality, aiming at only re-typing the diffs, i.e. those parts of the program that change or are inserted, rather than the entire codebase. We propose an algorithmic schema that drives an incremental usage of existing, standard typing algorithms with no changes. Ours is a grey-box approach: just the shape of the input, that of the results and some domain-specific knowledge are needed to instantiate our schema. Here, we present the foundations of our approach and the conditions for its correctmess. We show it at work to derive two different incremental typing algorithms. The first type checks an imperative language to detect information flow and non-interference, and the second infers types for a functional language. We assessed our proposal on a prototypical imple- mentation of an incremental type checker. Our experiments show that using the type checker incrementally is (almost) always rewardin

Using Standard Typing Algorithms Incrementally

Modern languages are equipped with static type checking/inference that helps programmers to keep a clean programming style and to reduce errors. However, the ever-growing size of programs and their continuous evolution require building fast and efficient analysers. A promising solution is incrementality, so one only re-types those parts of the program that are new, rather than the entire codebase. We propose an algorithmic schema driving the definition of an incremental typing algorithm that exploits the existing, standard ones with no changes. Ours is a grey-box approach, meaning that just the shape of the input, that of the results and some domain-specific knowledge are needed to instantiate our schema. Here, we present the foundations of our approach and we show it at work to derive three different incremental typing algorithms. The first two implement type checking and inference for a functional language. The last one type-checks an imperative language to detect information flow and non-interference. We assessed our proposal on a prototypical implementation of an incremental type checker. Our experiments show that using the type checker incrementally is (almost) always rewarding.Comment: corrected and updated; experimental results adde

CodePlan: Repository-level Coding using LLMs and Planning

Software engineering activities such as package migration, fixing errors reports from static analysis or testing, and adding type annotations or other specifications to a codebase, involve pervasively editing the entire repository of code. We formulate these activities as repository-level coding tasks. Recent tools like GitHub Copilot, which are powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), have succeeded in offering high-quality solutions to localized coding problems. Repository-level coding tasks are more involved and cannot be solved directly using LLMs, since code within a repository is inter-dependent and the entire repository may be too large to fit into the prompt. We frame repository-level coding as a planning problem and present a task-agnostic framework, called CodePlan to solve it. CodePlan synthesizes a multi-step chain of edits (plan), where each step results in a call to an LLM on a code location with context derived from the entire repository, previous code changes and task-specific instructions. CodePlan is based on a novel combination of an incremental dependency analysis, a change may-impact analysis and an adaptive planning algorithm. We evaluate the effectiveness of CodePlan on two repository-level tasks: package migration (C#) and temporal code edits (Python). Each task is evaluated on multiple code repositories, each of which requires inter-dependent changes to many files (between 2-97 files). Coding tasks of this level of complexity have not been automated using LLMs before. Our results show that CodePlan has better match with the ground truth compared to baselines. CodePlan is able to get 5/6 repositories to pass the validity checks (e.g., to build without errors and make correct code edits) whereas the baselines (without planning but with the same type of contextual information as CodePlan) cannot get any of the repositories to pass them