Melina Vidoni

Vatsal Venkatkrishna, Durga Shree Nagabushanam, Emmanuel Iko-Ojo Simon et al.

Documentation debt hinders the effective utilization of open-source software. Although code summarization tools have been helpful for developers, most would prefer a detailed account of each parameter in a function rather than a high-level summary. However, generating such a summary is too intricate for a single generative model to produce reliably due to the lack of high-quality training data. Thus, we propose a multi-step approach that combines multiple task-specific models, each adept at producing a specific section of a docstring. The combination of these models ensures the inclusion of each section in the final docstring. We compared the results from our approach with existing generative models using both automatic metrics and a human-centred evaluation with 17 participating developers, which proves the superiority of our approach over existing methods.

Melina Vidoni, Nicolás E. Díaz Ferreyra

Mining Software Repositories (MSRs) is an evidence-based methodology that cross-links data to uncover actionable information about software systems. Empirical studies in software engineering often leverage MSR techniques as they allow researchers to unveil issues and flaws in software development so as to analyse the different factors contributing to them. Hence, counting on fine-grained information about the repositories and sources being mined (e.g., server names, and contributors' identities) is essential for the reproducibility and transparency of MSR studies. However, this can also introduce threats to participants' privacy as their identities may be linked to flawed/sub-optimal programming practices (e.g., code smells, improper documentation), or vice-versa. Moreover, this can be extensible to close collaborators and community members resulting "guilty by association". This position paper aims to start a discussion about indirect participation in MSRs investigations, the dichotomy of 'privacy vs. utility' regarding sharing non-aggregated data, and its effects on privacy restrictions and ethical considerations for participant involvement.

Zadia Codabux, Melina Vidoni, Fatemeh H. Fard

Context: Technical Debt is a metaphor used to describe code that is "not quite right." Although TD studies have gained momentum, TD has yet to be studied as thoroughly in non-Object-Oriented (OO) or scientific software such as R. R is a multi-paradigm programming language, whose popularity in data science and statistical applications has amplified in recent years. Due to R's inherent ability to expand through user-contributed packages, several community-led organizations were created to organize and peer-review packages in a concerted effort to increase their quality. Nonetheless, it is well-known that most R users do not have a technical programming background, being from multiple disciplines. Objective: The goal of this study is to investigate TD in the peer-review documentation of R packages led by rOpenSci. Method: We collected over 5000 comments from 157 packages that had been reviewed and approved to be published at rOpenSci. We manually analyzed a sample dataset of these comments posted by package authors, editors of rOpenSci, and reviewers during the review process to investigate the TD types present in these reviews. Results: The findings of our study include (i) a taxonomy of TD derived from our analysis of the peer-reviews (ii) documentation debt as being the most prevalent type of debt (iii) different user roles are concerned with different types of TD. For instance, reviewers tend to report some TD types more than other roles, and the TD types they report are different from those reported by the authors of a package. Conclusion: TD analysis in scientific software or peer-review is almost non-existent. Our study is a pioneer but within the context of R packages. However, our findings can serve as a starting point for replication studies, given our public datasets, to perform similar analyses in other scientific software or to investigate the rationale behind our findings.