Using contextual knowledge in interactive fault localization

Tool support for automated fault localization in program debugging is limited because state-of-the-art algorithms often fail to provide efficient help to the user. They usually offer a ranked list of suspicious code elements, but the fault is not guaranteed to be found among the highest ranks. In Spectrum-Based Fault Localization (SBFL) – which uses code coverage information of test cases and their execution outcomes to calculate the ranks –, the developer has to investigate several locations before finding the faulty code element. Yet, all the knowledge she a priori has or acquires during this process is not reused by the SBFL tool. There are existing approaches in which the developer interacts with the SBFL algorithm by giving feedback on the elements of the prioritized list. We propose a new approach called iFL which extends interactive approaches by exploiting contextual knowledge of the user about the next item in the ranked list (e. g., a statement), with which larger code entities (e. g., a whole function) can be repositioned in their suspiciousness. We implemented a closely related algorithm proposed by Gong et al. , called Talk . First, we evaluated iFL using simulated users, and compared the results to SBFL and Talk . Next, we introduced two types of imperfections in the simulation: user’s knowledge and confidence levels. On SIR and Defects4J, results showed notable improvements in fault localization efficiency, even with strong user imperfections. We then empirically evaluated the effectiveness of the approach with real users in two sets of experiments: a quantitative evaluation of the successfulness of using iFL , and a qualitative evaluation of practical uses of the approach with experienced developers in think-aloud sessions

Uncovering Dependence Clusters and Linchpin Functions

Dependence clusters are (maximal) collections of mutually dependent source code entities according to some dependence relation. Their presence in software complicates many maintenance activities including testing, refactoring, and feature extraction. Despite several studies finding them common in production code, their formation, identification, and overall structure are not well understood, partly because of challenges in approximating true dependences between program entities. Previous research has considered two approximate dependence relations: a fine-grained statement-level relation using control and data dependences from a program’s System Dependence Graph and a coarser relation based on function-level controlflow reachability. In principal, the first is more expensive and more precise than the second. Using a collection of twenty programs, we present an empirical investigation of the clusters identified by these two approaches. In support of the analysis, we consider hybrid cluster types that works at the coarser function-level but is based on the higher-precision statement-level dependences. The three types of clusters are compared based on their slice sets using two clustering metrics. We also perform extensive analysis of the programs to identify linchpin functions – functions primarily responsible for holding a cluster together. Results include evidence that the less expensive, coarser approaches can often be used as e�ective proxies for the more expensive, finer-grained approaches. Finally, the linchpin analysis shows that linchpin functions can be e�ectively and automatically identified

Using contextual knowledge in interactive fault localization

Tool support for automated fault localization in program debugging is limited because state-of-the-art algorithms often fail to provide efficient help to the user. They usually offer a ranked list of suspicious code elements, but the fault is not guaranteed to be found among the highest ranks. In Spectrum-Based Fault Localization (SBFL) – which uses code coverage information of test cases and their execution outcomes to calculate the ranks –, the developer has to investigate several locations before finding the faulty code element. Yet, all the knowledge she a priori has or acquires during this process is not reused by the SBFL tool. There are existing approaches in which the developer interacts with the SBFL algorithm by giving feedback on the elements of the prioritized list. We propose a new approach called iFL which extends interactive approaches by exploiting contextual knowledge of the user about the next item in the ranked list (e. g., a statement), with which larger code entities (e. g., a whole function) can be repositioned in their suspiciousness. We implemented a closely related algorithm proposed by Gong et al. , called Talk . First, we evaluated iFL using simulated users, and compared the results to SBFL and Talk . Next, we introduced two types of imperfections in the simulation: user’s knowledge and confidence levels. On SIR and Defects4J, results showed notable improvements in fault localization efficiency, even with strong user imperfections. We then empirically evaluated the effectiveness of the approach with real users in two sets of experiments: a quantitative evaluation of the successfulness of using iFL , and a qualitative evaluation of practical uses of the approach with experienced developers in think-aloud sessions

Analysis of static and dynamic test-to-code traceability information

Unit test development has some widely accepted guidelines. Two of them concern the test and code relationship, namely isolation (unit tests should examine only a single unit) and separation (they should be placed next to this unit). These guidelines are not always kept by the developers. They can however be checked by investigating the relationship between tests and the source code, which is described by test-to-code traceability links. Still, these links perhaps cannot be inferred unambiguously from the test and production code. We developed a method that is based on the computation of traceability links for different aspects and report Structural Unit Test Smells where the traceability links for the different aspects do not match. The two aspects are the static structure of the code that reflects the intentions of the developers and testers and the dynamic coverage which reveals the actual behavior of the code during test execution. In this study, we investigated this method on real programs. We manually checked the reported Structural Unit Test Smells to find out whether they are real violations of the unit testing rules. Furthermore, the smells were analyzed to determine their root causes and possible ways of correction