No abstract

No abstract

Software code review is an inspection of a code change by an independent third-party developer in order to identify and fix defects before an integration. Effectively performing code review can improve the overall software quality. In recent years, Modern Code Review (MCR), a lightweight and tool-based code inspection, has been widely adopted in both proprietary and open-source software systems. Finding appropriate codereviewers in MCR is a necessary step of reviewing a code change. However, little research is known the difficulty of finding codereviewers in a distributed software development and its impact on reviewing time. In this paper, we investigate the impact of reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem has on reviewing time. We find that reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem take 12 days longer to approve a code change. To help developers find appropriate code-reviewers, we propose REVFINDER, a file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach. We leverage a similarity of previously reviewed file path to recommend an appropriate code-reviewer. The intuition is that files that are located in similar file paths would be managed and reviewed by similar experienced code-reviewers. Through an empirical evaluation on a case study of 42,045 reviews of Android Open Source Project (AOSP), OpenStack, Qt and LibreOffice projects, we find that REVFINDER accurately recommended 79% of reviews with a top 10 recommendation. REVFINDER also correctly recommended the code-reviewers with a median rank of 4. The overall ranking of REVFINDER is 3 times better than that of a baseline approach. We believe that REVFINDER could be applied to MCR in order to help developers find appropriate code-reviewers and speed up the overall code review process.

Defect prediction models that are trained on class imbalanced datasets (i.e., the proportion of defective and clean modules is not equally represented) are highly susceptible to produce inaccurate prediction models. Prior research compares the impact of class rebalancing techniques on the performance of defect prediction models. Prior research efforts arrive at contradictory conclusions due to the use of different choice of datasets, classification techniques, and performance measures. Such contradictory conclusions make it hard to derive practical guidelines for whether class rebalancing techniques should be applied in the context of defect prediction models. In this paper, we investigate the impact of 4 popularly-used class rebalancing techniques on 10 commonly-used performance measures and the interpretation of defect prediction models. We also construct statistical models to better understand in which experimental design settings that class rebalancing techniques are beneficial for defect prediction models. Through a case study of 101 datasets that span across proprietary and open-source systems, we recommend that class rebalancing techniques are necessary when quality assurance teams wish to increase the completeness of identifying software defects (i.e., Recall). However, class rebalancing techniques should be avoided when interpreting defect prediction models. We also find that class rebalancing techniques do not impact the AUC measure. Hence, AUC should be used as a standard measure when comparing defect prediction models.

Abstract-Defect prediction models-classifiers that identify defect-prone software modules-have configurable parameters that control their characteristics (e.g., the number of trees in a random forest). Recent studies show that these classifiers underperform when default settings are used. In this paper, we study the impact of automated parameter optimization on defect prediction models. Through a case study of 18 datasets, we find that automated parameter optimization: (1) improves AUC performance by up to 40 percentage points; (2) yields classifiers that are at least as stable as those trained using default settings; (3) substantially shifts the importance ranking of variables, with as few as 28% of the top-ranked variables in optimized classifiers also being top-ranked in non-optimized classifiers; (4) yields optimized settings for 17 of the 20 most sensitive parameters that transfer among datasets without a statistically significant drop in performance; and (5) adds less than 30 minutes of additional computation to 12 of the 26 studied classification techniques. While widely-used classification techniques like random forest and support vector machines are not optimization-sensitive, traditionally overlooked techniques like C5.0 and neural networks can actually outperform widely-used techniques after optimization is applied. This highlights the importance of exploring the parameter space when using parameter-sensitive classification techniques.