Static correspondence and correlation between field defects and warnings reported by a bug finding tool

Couto, Cesar; Montandon, João Eduardo; Silva, Christofer; Valente, M.

doi:10.1007/s11219-011-9172-5

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It includes a large number of versions (943 collected over a time frame of almost four years), classes and methods representing real-world and non-trivial application, with a consolidated number of users and a relevant history of bugs. Despite this observation, our findings -as usual in empirical software engineering -cannot be directly generalized to other systems, specifically to systems implemented in other languages or to systems from different domains, even if a comparison with previous works [7], [8], [9], [6], [10] (which analyze systems implemented in other languages and from different domains) yielded similar results.…”

Section: B Evaluating Top Rulescontrasting

confidence: 64%

“…Also, we want to study if domain specific rules are better bug predictors than generic rules. As part of this research we need to replicate previous experiments ( [7], [8], [9], [6], [10]) on our case study, showing that generic coding standard rules generate many false positives with regard to bug prediction. We rephrase here our three contributions in the form of three questions.…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…There are empirical evidences supporting the intuition that bug finding tools, with these rules, do not prevent the introduction of bugs in software [7], [8], [9], [6], [10], [11]. In general, warnings and observed defects are independent, there is no correlation between them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Previous research try to predict bugs at the levels of classes, methods, or lines of code [8], [15], [6], [9]. This work is about evaluating the relation between warnings and defects, which requires to match them to source code.…”

Section: A Determining Warning and Defectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• ANSI compatibility (8). It targets code that is not ANSI compatible and is also related to the portability of Seaside.…”

Section: 6 Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Domain specific warnings: Are they any better?

Hora

Anquetil

Ducasse

et al. 2012

2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Tools to detect coding standard violations in source code are commonly used to improve code quality. One of their original goals is to prevent bugs, yet, a high number of false positives is generated by the rules of these tools, i.e., most warnings do not indicate real bugs. There are empirical evidences supporting the intuition that the rules enforced by such tools do not prevent the introduction of bugs in software. This may occur because the rules are too generic and do not focus on domain specific problems of the software under analysis. We underwent an investigation of rules created for a specific domain based on expert opinion to understand if such rules are worthwhile enforcing in the context of defect prevention. In this paper, we performed a systematic study to investigate the relation between generic and domain specific warnings and observed defects. From our experiment on a real case, long term evolution, software, we have found that domain specific rules provide better defect prevention than generic ones.

show abstract

Section: B Evaluating Top Rulescontrasting

confidence: 64%

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: A Determining Warning and Defectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• ANSI compatibility (8). It targets code that is not ANSI compatible and is also related to the portability of Seaside.…”

Section: 6 Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Domain specific warnings: Are they any better?

Hora

Anquetil

Ducasse

et al. 2012

2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mining architectural violations from version history

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agradecer não é, de modo algum, uma tarefa trivial. São tantas pessoas a agradecer que sempre se corre o risco de, equivocadamente, não se fazer devida menção a alguém. Então, objetivamente, começarei por agradecer a todos que de alguma forma me ajudaram, direta ou indiretamente. Assim, ninguém estará completamente esquecido. De forma especial, inicialmente, agradeço ao CEFET-MG e ao Departamento de Computação por terem concedido liberação das minhas atividades docentes para que eu pudesse me dedicar integralmente ao doutoramento. Ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação e à CAPES/CNPq pelo apoio financeiro. Aos funcionários da Secretaria do PPGCC, sempre prestativos e competentes. Aos amigos do LLP pelo companheirismo e amizade. Sentirei falta das agradáveis divagações diárias sobre os mais variados assuntos durante o almoço no "bandeco". Aos meus familiares pelo apoio incondicional e por estarem sempre ao meu lado, especialmente aos meus irmãos Leandro e Patrícia, à minha filha Amanda, à minha namorada Letícia, à minha avó Terezinha e aos meus tios Ronaldo e Neide. À Professora Mariza, minha coorientadora, pelas incontáveis contribuições para realização desse trabalho. Finalmente, agradeço especialmente ao Professor Marco Túlio, pela paciência, comprometimento, disponibilidade e dedicação. Um profissional exemplar. Um amigo por quem tenho eterna gratidão.

show abstract

Characterizing the evolution of statically-detectable performance issues of Android apps

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

show abstract

Static correspondence and correlation between field defects and warnings reported by a bug finding tool

Cited by 28 publications

References 19 publications

Domain specific warnings: Are they any better?

Domain specific warnings: Are they any better?

Mining architectural violations from version history

Characterizing the evolution of statically-detectable performance issues of Android apps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About