Security is a requirement of utmost importance to produce high-quality software. However, there is still a considerable amount of vulnerabilities being discovered and fixed almost weekly. We hypothesize that developers affect the maintainability of their codebases when patching vulnerabilities. This paper evaluates the impact of patches to improve security on the maintainability of open-source software. Maintainability is measured based on the Better Code Hub’s model of 10 guidelines on a dataset, including 1300 security-related commits. Results show evidence of a trade-off between security and maintainability for 41.90% of the cases, i.e., developers may hinder software maintainability. Our analysis shows that 38.29% of patches increased software complexity and 37.87% of patches increased the percentage of LOCs per unit. The implications of our study are that changes to codebases while patching vulnerabilities need to be performed with extra care; tools for patch risk assessment should be integrate into the CI/CD pipeline; computer science curricula needs to be updated; and, more secure programming languages are necessary.

High energy consumption is a challenging issue that an ever increasing number of mobile applications face today. However, energy consumption is being tested in an ad hoc way, despite being an important non-functional requirement of an application. Such limitation becomes particularly disconcerting during software testing: on the one hand, developers do not really know how to measure energy; on the other hand, there is no knowledge as to what is the energy overhead imposed by the testing framework. In this paper, as we evaluate eight popular mobile UI automation frameworks, we have discovered that there are automation frameworks that increase energy consumption up to roughly 2200 percent. While limited in the interactions one can do, Espresso is the most energy efficient framework. However, depending on the needs of the tester, Appium, Monkeyrunner, or UIAutomator are good alternatives. In practice, results show that deciding which is the most suitable framework is vital. We provide a decision tree to help developers make an educated decision on which framework suits best their testing needs.

Travis CI handles automatically thousands of builds every day to, amongst other things, provide valuable feedback to thousands of open-source developers. In this paper, we investigate Travis CI to firstly understand who is using it, and when they start to use it. Secondly, we investigate how the developers use Travis CI and finally, how frequently the developers change the Travis CI configurations. We observed during our analysis that the main users of Travis CI are corporate users such as Microsoft. And the programming languages used in Travis CI by those users do not follow the same popularity trend than on GitHub, for example, Python is the most popular language on Travis CI, but it is only the third one on GitHub. We also observe that Travis CI is set up on average seven days after the creation of the repository and the jobs are still mainly used (60%) to run tests. And finally, we observe that 7.34% of the commits modify the Travis CI configuration. We share the biggest benchmark of Travis CI jobs (to our knowledge): It contains 35,793,144 jobs from 272,917 different GitHub projects.

Current metrics for assessing the adequacy of a test-suite plainly focus on the number of components (be it lines, branches, paths) covered by the suite, but do not explicitly check how the tests actually exercise these components and whether they provide enough information so that spectrum-based fault localization techniques can perform accurate fault isolation. We propose a metric, called DDU, aimed at complementing adequacy measurements by quantifying a test-suite's diagnosability, i.e., the effectiveness of applying spectrum-based fault localization to pinpoint faults in the code in the event of test failures. Our aim is to increase the value generated by creating thorough test-suites, so they are not only regarded as error detection mechanisms but also as effective diagnostic aids that help widely-used fault-localization techniques to accurately pinpoint the location of bugs in the system. We have performed a topology-based simulation of thousands of spectra and have found that DDU can effectively establish an upper bound on the effort to diagnose faults. Furthermore, our empirical experiments using the Defects4J dataset show that optimizing a test suite with respect to DDU yields a 34 percent gain in spectrum-based fault localization report accuracy when compared to the standard branch-coverage metric.

Current metrics for assessing the adequacy of a test- suite plainly focus on the number of components (be it lines, branches, paths) covered by the suite, but do not explicitly check how the tests actually exercise these components and whether they provide enough information so that spectrum-based fault localization techniques can perform accurate fault isolation. We propose a metric, called DDU, aimed at complementing adequacy measurements by quantifying a test-suite’s diagnosability, i.e., the effectiveness of applying spectrum-based fault localization to pinpoint faults in the code in the event of test failures. Our aim is to increase the value generated by creating thorough test-suites, so they are not only regarded as error detection mechanisms but also as effective diagnostic aids that help widely-used fault- localization techniques to accurately pinpoint the location of bugs in the system. Our experiments show that optimizing a test suite with respect to DDU yields a 34% gain in spectrum-based fault localization report accuracy when compared to the standard branch-coverage metric.

In the last two decades, a great amount of effort has been put in researching automated debugging techniques to support developers in the debugging process. However, in a widely cited user study published in 2011, Parnin and Orso found that research in automated debugging techniques made assumptions that do not hold in practice, and suggested four research directions to remedy this: absolute evaluation metrics, result comprehension, ecosystems, and user studies. In this study, we revisit the research directions proposed by the authors, offering an overview of the progress that the research community has made in addressing them since 2011. We observe that new absolute evaluation metrics and result comprehension techniques have been proposed, while research in ecosystems and user studies remains mostly unexplored. We analyze what is hard about these unexplored directions and propose avenues for further research in the area of fault localization.