Automated test generation tools have been widely investigated with the goal of reducing the cost of testing activities. However, generated tests have been shown not to help developers in detecting and finding more bugs even though they reach higher structural coverage compared to manual testing. The main reason is that generated tests are diff-cult to understand and maintain. Our paper proposes an approach, coined TestDescriber, which automatically generates test case summaries of the portion of code exercised by each individual test, thereby improving understandability. We argue that this approach can complement the current techniques around automated unit test generation or searchbased techniques designed to generate a possibly minimal set of test cases. In evaluating our approach we found that (1) developers find twice as many bugs, and (2) test case summaries significantly improve the comprehensibility of test cases, which is considered particularly useful by 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

Source code comments are a cornerstone of software documentation facilitating feature development and maintenance. Well-defined documentation formats, like Javadoc, make it easy to include structural metadata used to, for example, generate documentation manuals. However, the actual usage of structural elements in source code comments has not been studied yet. We investigate to which extent these structural elements are used in practice and whether the added information can be leveraged to improve tools assisting developers when writing comments. Existing research on comment generation traditionally focuses on automatic generation of summaries. However, recent works have shown promising results when supporting comment authoring through a next-word prediction. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of commenting practice in more than 18K open-source projects written in Python and Java showing that many structural elements, particularly parameter and return value descriptions are indeed widely used. We discover that while a majority are rather short at about 6 to 9 words, many are several hundred words in length. We further find that Python comments tend to be significantly longer than Java comments, possibly due to the weakly-typed nature of the former. Following the empirical analysis, we extend an existing language model with support for structural information, substantially improving the Top-1 accuracy of predicted words (Python 9.6%, Java 7.8%).@en

Research has yielded approaches to predict future defects in software artifacts based on historical information, thus assisting companies in effectively allocating limited development resources and developers in reviewing each others' code changes. Developers are unlikely to devote the same effort to inspect each software artifact predicted to contain defects, since the effort varies with the artifacts' size (cost) and the number of defects it exhibits (effectiveness). We propose to use Genetic Algorithms (GAs) for training prediction models to maximize their cost-effectiveness. We evaluate the approach on two well-known models, Regression Tree and Generalized Linear Model, and predict defects between multiple releases of six open source projects. Our results show that regression models trained by GAs significantly outperform their traditional counterparts, improving the cost-effectiveness by up to 240%. Often the top 10% of predicted lines of code contain up to twice as many defects.@en