Kevin Schneider

Md Nadim, Manishankar Mondal, Chanchal K. Roy et al.

Co-change candidates are the group of code fragments that require a change if any of these fragments experience a modification in a commit operation during software evolution. The cloned co-change candidates are a subset of the co-change candidates, and the members in this subset are clones of one another. The cloned co-change candidates are usually created by reusing existing code fragments in a software system. Detecting cloned co-change candidates is essential for clone-tracking, and studies have shown that we can use clone detection tools to find cloned co-change candidates. However, although several studies evaluate clone detection tools for their accuracy in detecting cloned fragments, we found no study that evaluates clone detection tools for detecting cloned co-change candidates. In this study, we explore the dimension of code clone research for detecting cloned co-change candidates. We compare the performance of 12 different configurations of nine promising clone detection tools in identifying cloned co-change candidates from eight open-source C and Java-based subject systems of various sizes and application domains. A ranked list and analysis of the results provides valuable insights and guidelines into selecting and configuring a clone detection tool for identifying co-change candidates and leads to a new dimension of code clone research into change impact analysis.

Avijit Bhattacharjee, Sristy Sumana Nath, Shurui Zhou et al.

The fork-based development mechanism provides the flexibility and the unified processes for software teams to collaborate easily in a distributed setting without too much coordination overhead.Currently, multiple social coding platforms support fork-based development, such as GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket. Although these different platforms virtually share the same features, they have different emphasis. As GitHub is the most popular platform and the corresponding data is publicly available, most of the current studies are focusing on GitHub hosted projects. However, we observed anecdote evidences that people are confused about choosing among these platforms, and some projects are migrating from one platform to another, and the reasons behind these activities remain unknown.With the advances of Software Heritage Graph Dataset (SWHGD),we have the opportunity to investigate the forking activities across platforms. In this paper, we conduct an exploratory study on 10popular open-source projects to identify cross-platform forks and investigate the motivation behind. Preliminary result shows that cross-platform forks do exist. For the 10 subject systems in this study, we found 81,357 forks in total among which 179 forks are on GitLab. Based on our qualitative analysis, we found that most of the cross-platform forks that we identified are mirrors of the repositories on another platform, but we still find cases that were created due to preference of using certain functionalities (e.g. Continuous Integration (CI)) supported by different platforms. This study lays the foundation of future research directions, such as understanding the differences between platforms and supporting cross-platform collaboration.

Saikat Mondal, Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Chanchal K. Roy et al.

Software developers often look for solutions to their code-level problems using the Stack Overflow Q&A website. To receive help, developers frequently submit questions containing sample code segments and the description of the programming issue. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to reproduce the issues from the code segments that may impede questions from receiving prompt and appropriate solutions. We conducted an exploratory study on the reproducibility of issues discussed in 400 Java and 400 Python questions. We parsed, compiled, executed, and carefully examined the code segments from these questions to reproduce the reported programming issues. The outcomes of our study are three-fold. First, we found that we can reproduce approximately 68% of Java and 71% of Python issues, whereas we were unable to reproduce approximately 22% of Java and 19% of Python issues using the code segments. Of the issues that were reproducible, approximately 67% of the Java code segments and 20% of the Python code segments required minor or major modifications to reproduce the issues. Second, we carefully investigated why programming issues could not be reproduced and provided evidence-based guidelines for writing effective code examples for Stack Overflow questions. Third, we investigated the correlation between the issue reproducibility status of questions and the corresponding answer meta-data, such as the presence of an accepted answer. According to our analysis, a reproducible question has at least two times higher chance of receiving an accepted answer than an irreproducible question. Besides, the median time delay in receiving accepted answers is double if the issues reported in questions could not be reproduced. We also investigate the confounding factors (e.g., reputation) and find that confounding factors do not hurt the correlation between reproducibility status and answer meta-data.

Golam Mostaeen, Banani Roy, Chanchal Roy et al.

A code clone is a pair of code fragments, within or between software systems that are similar. Since code clones often negatively impact the maintainability of a software system, several code clone detection techniques and tools have been proposed and studied over the last decade. To detect all possible similar source code patterns in general, the clone detection tools work on the syntax level while lacking user-specific preferences. This often means the clones must be manually inspected before analysis in order to remove those false positives from consideration. This manual clone validation effort is very time-consuming and often error-prone, in particular for large-scale clone detection. In this paper, we propose a machine learning approach for automating the validation process. Our machine learning-based approach is used to automatically validate clones without human inspection. Thus the proposed approach can be used to remove the false positive clones from the detection results, automatically evaluate the precision of any clone detectors for any given set of datasets, evaluate existing clone benchmark datasets, or even be used to build new clone benchmarks and datasets with minimum effort. In an experiment with clones detected by several clone detectors in several different software systems, we found our approach has an accuracy of up to 87.4% when compared against the manual validation by multiple expert judges. The proposed method also shows better results in several comparative studies with the existing related approaches for clone classification.