Automatic static analysis tools (ASATs) are instruments that support code quality assessment by automatically detecting defects and design issues. Despite their popularity, they are characterized by (i) a high false positive rate and (ii) the low comprehensibility of the generated warnings. However, no prior studies have investigated the usage of ASATs in different development contexts (e.g., code reviews, regular development), nor how open source projects integrate ASATs into their workflows. These perspectives are paramount to improve the prioritization of the identified warnings. To shed light on the actual ASATs usage practices, in this paper we first survey 56 developers (66% from industry and 34% from open source projects) and interview 11 industrial experts leveraging ASATs in their workflow with the aim of understanding how they use ASATs in different contexts. Furthermore, to investigate how ASATs are being used in the workflows of open source projects, we manually inspect the contribution guidelines of 176 open-source systems and extract the ASATs’ configuration and build files from their corresponding GitHub repositories. Our study highlights that (i) 71% of developers do pay attention to different warning categories depending on the development context; (ii) 63% of our respondents rely on specific factors (e.g., team policies and composition) when prioritizing warnings to fix during their programming; and (iii) 66% of the projects define how to use specific ASATs, but only 37% enforce their usage for new contributions. The perceived relevance of ASATs varies between different projects and domains, which is a sign that ASATs use is still not a common practice. In conclusion, this study confirms previous findings on the unwillingness of developers to configure ASATs and it emphasizes the necessity to improve existing strategies for the selection and prioritization of ASATs warnings that are shown to developers. @en

An effective and efficient application of Continuous Integration (CI) and Delivery (CD) requires software projects to follow certain principles and good practices. Configuring such a CI/CD pipeline is challenging and error-prone. Therefore, automated linters have been proposed to detect errors in the pipeline. While existing linters identify syntactic errors, detect security vulnerabilities or misuse of the features provided by build servers, they do not support developers that want to prevent common misconfigurations of a CD pipeline that potentially violate CD principles ("CD smells"). To this end, we propose CD-Linter, a semantic linter that can automatically identify four different smells in pipeline configuration files. We have evaluated our approach through a large-scale and long-term study that consists of (i) monitoring 145 issues (opened in as many open-source projects) over a period of 6 months, (ii) manually validating the detection precision and recall on a representative sample of issues, and (iii) assessing the magnitude of the observed smells on 5,312 open-source projects on GitLab. Our results show that CD smells are accepted and fixed by most of the developers and our linter achieves a precision of 87% and a recall of 94%. Those smells can be frequently observed in the wild, as 31% of projects with long configurations are affected by at least one smell.

@en

Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) are widespread in both industrial and open-source software (OSS) projects. Recent research characterized build failures in CI and identified factors potentially correlated to them. However, most observations and findings of previous work are exclusively based on OSS projects or data from a single industrial organization. This paper provides a first attempt to compare the CI processes and occurrences of build failures in 349 Java OSS projects and 418 projects from a financial organization, ING Nederland. Through the analysis of 34,182 failing builds (26% of the total number of observed builds), we derived a taxonomy of failures that affect the observed CI processes. Using cluster analysis, we observed that in some cases OSS and ING projects share similar build failure patterns (e.g., few compilation failures as compared to frequent testing failures), while in other cases completely different patterns emerge. In short, we explain how OSS and ING CI processes exhibit commonalities, yet are substantially different in their design and in the failures they report.@en