Time warp, an approach for reasoning over system histories

Abstract

The version history of a software system contains a wealth of information that can assist developers in their daily implementation and maintenance tasks. By reasoning over the role of certain code entities in previous versions of the system, developers can better understand their current state, assess the required maintenance and avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Unfortunately, current approaches do not offer a means to easily extract specific information about the source code from such a version history. In this paper we present Time Warp, a library of logic predicates that builds on the SOUL language and the FAMIX and Hismo meta-models and that allows writing queries about the history of a system. By means of a number of concrete examples, we demonstrate how our approach can be used to express interesting queries over the version history of a system.

ProMeTA: a taxonomy for program metamodels in program reverse engineering

“…15 During the SLR, several history-aware metamodels were found to explicitly address the version history: Ring (Gȯmez and Ducasse 2012), Hismo (Gîrba and Ducasse 2006;Gȯmez et al 2009), FAMIX-based RHDB code model (Antoniol et al 2005) and FAMIX-based ArchEvoDB schema . If practitioners and researchers conduct reverse engineering in which history analysis is taken into account, selecting a history-aware metamodel, especially the RHDB code model and the ArchEvoDB schema, may be better since these are defined as extensions of FAMIX, which is a widely accepted popular metamodel.…”

“…Moreover, we replace work summary papers such as a summary of a Ph.D. work with their complete version papers. We perform the full analysis and remove 6 more papers from the list, leaving 44 papers (Ebert 2008;Bergmayr and Wimmer 2013;Naik and Bahulkar 2004;Chirila and Jebelean 2010;Molina 2010, 2014;Martinez et al 2014: Owens andAnderson 2013;Soden and Eichler 2007;Antoniol et al 2003;Vidács 2009;Strein et al 2006;Lethbridge et al 2004;Lin and Holt 2004;Knodel and Calderon-Meza 2004;Brühlmann et al 2008;Tripathi et al 2009;Lanza 2003;Pinzger et al 2005;Mens and Lanza 2002;Tichelaar et al 2000;Antoniol et al 2005;Gȯmez et al 2009;Reus et al 2006;Reus et al 2004;Cho 2005;Heidenreich et al 2010;Kollmann and Gogolla 2001;Favre 2008;Pėrez-Castillo et al 2013;Santibȧnėz et al 2015;Durelli et al 2014;Izquierdo and Molina 2010;Martinez et al 2014;Arcelli et al 2010;Guėhėneuc and Albin-Amiot 2001;Harmer and Wilkie 2002;Wu 2010;Gȯmez and Ducasse 2012;Alikacem and Sahraoui 2009;Ossher et al 2009;…”

Improving automatic bug assignment using time‐metadata in term‐weighting

“…Each software project has different goals and requirements in different periods of its lifetime [20]. Also, requirement changes may result in the conditions of the project's development being changed [21].…”

“…Also, the test sets were created from randomly selected reports to avoid bias (Section 3.2). Furthermore, according to the report that different bugs occurred at specific period of the project's lifetime [20] that may cause a biased evaluation, the primary test set was selected randomly from various periods of the projects.…”