Software bots have been facilitating several development activities
in Open Source Software (OSS) projects, including code review. However,
these bots may bring unexpected impacts to group dynamics, as frequently
occurs with new technology adoption. Understanding and anticipating such
effects is important for planning and management. To analyze these effects, we
investigate how several activity indicators change after the adoption of a code
review bot. We employed a regression discontinuity design on 1,194 software
projects from GitHub. We also interviewed 12 practitioners, including open-
source maintainers and contributors. Our results indicate that the adoption
of code review bots increases the number of monthly merged pull requests,
decreases monthly non-merged pull requests, and decreases communication
among developers. From the developers’ perspective, these effects are explained
by the transparency and confidence the bot comments introduce, in addition
to the changes in the discussion focused on pull requests. Practitioners and
maintainers may leverage our results to understand, or even predict, bot effects
on their projects.@en

Code smells are poor implementation choices applied by developers during software evolution that often lead to critical flaws or failure. Much in the same way, community smells reflect the presence of organizational and socio-Technical issues within a software community that may lead to additional project costs. Recent empirical studies provide evidence that community smells are often-if not always-connected to circumstances such as code smells. In this paper we look deeper into this connection by conducting a mixed-methods empirical study of 117 releases from 9 open-source systems. The qualitative and quantitative sides of our mixed-methods study were run in parallel and assume a mutually-confirmative connotation. On the one hand, we survey 162 developers of the 9 considered systems to investigate whether developers perceive relationship between community smells and the code smells found in those projects. On the other hand, we perform a fine-grained analysis into the 117 releases of our dataset to measure the extent to which community smells impact code smell intensity (i.e., criticality). We then propose a code smell intensity prediction model that relies on both technical and community-related aspects. The results of both sides of our mixed-methods study lead to one conclusion: community-related factors contribute to the intensity of code smells. This conclusion supports the joint use of community and code smells detection as a mechanism for the joint management of technical and social problems around software development communities.

@en

When identifying the origin of software bugs, many studies assume that “a bug was introduced by the lines of code that were modified to fix it”. However, this assumption does not always hold and at least in some cases, these modified lines are not responsible for introducing the bug. For example, when the bug was caused by a change in an external API. The lack of empirical evidence makes it impossible to assess how important these cases are and therefore, to which extent the assumption is valid. To advance in this direction, and better understand how bugs “are born”, we propose a model for defining criteria to identify the first snapshot of an evolving software system that exhibits a bug. This model, based on the perfect test idea, decides whether a bug is observed after a change to the software. Furthermore, we studied the model’s criteria by carefully analyzing how 116 bugs were introduced in two different open source software projects. The manual analysis helped classify the root cause of those bugs and created manually curated datasets with bug-introducing changes and with bugs that were not introduced by any change in the source code. Finally, we used these datasets to evaluate the performance of four existing SZZ-based algorithms for detecting bug-introducing changes. We found that SZZ-based algorithms are not very accurate, especially when multiple commits are found; the F-Score varies from 0.44 to 0.77, while the percentage of true positives does not exceed 63%. Our results show empirical evidence that the prevalent assumption, “a bug was introduced by the lines of code that were modified to fix it”, is just one case of how bugs are introduced in a software system. Finding what introduced a bug is not trivial: bugs can be introduced by the developers and be in the code, or be created irrespective of the code. Thus, further research towards a better understanding of the origin of bugs in software projects could help to improve design integration tests and to design other procedures to make software development more robust.

@en

“There can be no vulnerability without risk; there can be no community without vulnerability; there can be no peace, and ultimately no life, without community.” - [M. Scott Peck]

The open-source phenomenon has reached the point in which it is virtually impossible to find large applications that do not rely on it. Such grand adoption may turn into a risk if the community regulatory aspects behind open-source work (e.g., contribution guidelines or release schemas) are left implicit and their effect untracked. We advocate the explicit study and automated support of such aspects and propose Yoshi (Y ielding O pen-S ource H ealth I nformation), a tool able to map open-source communities onto community patterns, sets of known organisational and social structure types and characteristics with measurable core attributes. This mapping is beneficial since it allows, for example, (a) further investigation of community health measuring established characteristics from organisations research, (b) reuse of pattern-specific best-practices from the same literature, and (c) diagnosis of organisational anti-patterns specific to open-source, if any. We evaluate the tool in a quantitative empirical study involving 25 open-source communities from GitHub, finding that the tool offers a valuable basis to monitor key community traits behind open-source development and may form an effective combination with web-portals such as OpenHub or Bitergia. We made the proposed tool open source and publicly available.@en

Background: Many studies in the software research literature on bug fixing are built upon the assumption that "a given bug was introduced by the lines of code that were modified to fix it", or variations of it. Although this assumption seems very reasonable at first glance, there is little empirical evidence supporting it. A careful examination surfaces that there are other possible sources for the introduction of bugs such as modifications to those lines that happened before the last change an changes external to the piece of code being fixed. Goal: We aim at understanding the complex phenomenon of bug introduction and bug fix. Method: We design a preliminary approach distinguishing between bug introducing commits (BIC) and first failing moments (FFM). We apply this approach to Nova and ElasticSearch, two large and well-known open source software projects. Results: In our initial results we obtain that at least 24% bug fixes in Nova and 10% in ElasticSearch have not been caused by a BIC but by co-evolution, compatibility issues or bugs in external API. Merely 26--29% of BICs can be found using the algorithm based on the assumption that "a given bug was introduced by the lines of code that were modified to fix it". Conclusions: The approach allows also for a better framing of the comparison of automatic methods to find bug inducting changes. Our results indicate that more attention should be paid to whether a bug has been introduced and, when it was introduced.@en

Research shows the importance of selecting good names to identifiers in software code: more meaningful names improve readability. In particular, several guidelines encourage long and descriptive variable names. A recent study analyzed the use of variable names in five programming languages, focusing on single-letter variable names, because of the apparent contradiction between their frequent use and the fact that these variables violate the aforementioned guidelines.,In this paper, we analyze variables in Scratch, a popular block-based language aimed at children. We start by replicating the above single-letter study for Scratch. We augment this study by analyzing single-letter procedure names, and by investigating the use of Scratch specific naming patterns: spaces in variable names, numerics as variables and textual labels in procedure names.,The results of our analysis show that Scratch programmers often prefer longer identifier names than developers in other languages, while Scratch procedure names have even longer names than Scratch variables. For the single-letter variables, the most frequent names are x, y, and i. Single-letter procedures are less popular, but show more tendency to be in upper case. When compared to the other programming languages, the usage of single uppercase letters in Scratch variables seems to be similar to the pattern found in Perl, while for the lowercase letters - to the pattern found in Java. Concerning Scratch specific features, 44% of the unique variable names and 34% of the projects in the dataset include at least one space. The usage of textual labels between parameters in procedure names appears as not common, however textual patterns used imply an influence from textual languages, for example by using brackets.,Previous research indicate the identifier names as one significant issue in transitioning from visual block-based to textual programming languages. The naming patterns we found support this claim for Scratch programmers who may incur difficulties when transitioning to the use of mainstream textual programming languages. Those languages restrict the use of spaces in identifiers and more often divert into short and single-letter names - tendencies opposite to the naming preferences in Scratch.

@en