Prioritizing Warning Categories by Analyzing Software History
Authors:
- 1 May 2007
- conference paper
- Published by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
- No. 21601852,p. 27
Abstract
Automatic bug finding tools tend to have high false positive rates: most warnings do not indicate real bugs. Usually bug finding tools prioritize each warning category. For example, the priority of "overflow " is 1 and the priority of "jumbled incremental" is 3, but the tools 'prioritization is not very effective. In this paper, we prioritize warning categories by analyzing the software change history. The underlying intuition is that if warnings from a category are resolved quickly by developers, the warnings in the category are important. Experiments with three bug finding tools (FindBugs, JLint, and PMD) and two open source projects (Columba and jEdit) indicate that different warning categories have very different lifetimes. Based on that observation, we propose a preliminary algorithm for warning category prioritizing.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prioritizing Software Inspection Results using Static Profiling2006
- A Comparison of Bug Finding Tools for Java2005
- Using origin analysis to detect merging and splitting of source code entitiesIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2005
- Finding bugs is easy2004
- Z-Ranking: Using Statistical Analysis to Counter the Impact of Static Analysis Approximations2003