Repeated Builds During Code Review: An Empirical Study of the OpenStack Community

Code review is a popular practice where developers critique each others' changes. Since automated builds can identify low-level issues (e.g., syntactic errors, regression bugs), it is not uncommon for software organizations to incorporate automated builds in the code review process. In such code review deployment scenarios, submitted change sets must be approved for integration by both peer code reviewers and automated build bots. Since automated builds may produce an unreliable signal of the status of a change set (e.g., due to ``flaky'' or non-deterministic execution behaviour), code review tools, such as Gerrit, allow developers to request a ``recheck'', which repeats the build process without updating the change set. We conjecture that an unconstrained recheck command will waste time and resources if it is not applied judiciously. To explore how the recheck command is applied in a practical setting, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study of 66,932 code reviews from the OpenStack community. We quantitatively analyze (i) how often build failures are rechecked; (ii) the extent to which invoking recheck changes build failure outcomes; and (iii) how much waste is generated by invoking recheck. We observe that (i) 55% of code reviews invoke the recheck command after a failing build is reported; (ii) invoking the recheck command only changes the outcome of a failing build in 42% of the cases; and (iii) invoking the recheck command increases review waiting time by an average of 2,200% and equates to 187.4 compute years of waste -- enough compute resources to compete with the oldest land living animal on earth.Comment: conferenc

Understanding the Role of Images on Stack Overflow

Images are increasingly being shared by software developers in diverse channels including question-and-answer forums like Stack Overflow. Although prior work has pointed out that these images are meaningful and provide complementary information compared to their associated text, how images are used to support questions is empirically unknown. To address this knowledge gap, in this paper we specifically conduct an empirical study to investigate (I) the characteristics of images, (II) the extent to which images are used in different question types, and (III) the role of images on receiving answers. Our results first show that user interface is the most common image content and undesired output is the most frequent purpose for sharing images. Moreover, these images essentially facilitate the understanding of 68% of sampled questions. Second, we find that discrepancy questions are more relatively frequent compared to those without images, but there are no significant differences observed in description length in all types of questions. Third, the quantitative results statistically validate that questions with images are more likely to receive accepted answers, but do not speed up the time to receive answers. Our work demonstrates the crucial role that images play by approaching the topic from a new angle and lays the foundation for future opportunities to use images to assist in tasks like generating questions and identifying question-relatedness

DeepJIT: an end-to-end deep learning framework for just-in-time defect prediction

National Research Foundation (NRF) Singapor

An Empirical Study of Goto in C Code from GitHub Repositories

ABSTRACT It is nearly 50 years since Dijkstra argued that goto obscures the flow of control in program execution and urged programmers to abandon the goto statement. While past research has shown that goto is still in use, little is known about whether goto is used in the unrestricted manner that Dijkstra feared, and if it is 'harmful' enough to be a part of a post-release bug. We, therefore, conduct a two part empirical study -(1) qualitatively analyze a statistically representative sample of 384 files from a population of almost 250K C programming language files collected from over 11K GitHub repositories and find that developers use goto in C files for error handling (80.21±5%) and cleaning up resources at the end of a procedure (40.36 ± 5%); an