Maurício Aniche

One of the main challenges that developers face when testing their systems lies in engineering test cases that are good enough to reveal bugs. And while our body of knowledge on software testing and automated test case generation is already quite significant, in practice, developers are still the ones responsible for engineering test cases manually. Therefore, understanding the developers' thought- and decision-making processes while engineering test cases is a fundamental step in making developers better at testing software. In this paper, we observe 13 developers thinking-aloud while testing different real-world open-source methods, and use these observations to explain how developers engineer test cases. We then challenge and augment our main findings by surveying 72 software developers on their testing practices. We discuss our results from three different angles. First, we propose a general framework that explains how developers reason about testing. Second, we propose and describe in detail the three different overarching strategies that developers apply when testing. Third, we compare and relate our observations with the existing body of knowledge and propose future studies that would advance our knowledge on the topic.

One of the main challenges that developers face when testing their systems lies in engineering test cases that are good enough to reveal bugs. And while our body of knowledge on software testing and automated test case generation is already quite significant, in practice, developers are still the ones responsible for engineering test cases manually. Therefore, understanding the developers' thought- and decision-making processes while engineering test cases is a fundamental step in making developers better at testing software. In this paper, we observe 13 developers thinking-aloud while testing different real-world open-source methods, and use these observations to explain how developers engineer test cases. We then challenge and augment our main findings by surveying 72 software developers on their testing practices. We discuss our results from three different angles. First, we propose a general framework that explains how developers reason about testing. Second, we propose and describe in detail the three different overarching strategies that developers apply when testing. Third, we compare and relate our observations with the existing body of knowledge and propose future studies that would advance our knowledge on the topic.

Software logs are of great value in both industrial and open-source projects. Mobile analytics logging enables developers to collect logs remotely from their apps running on end user devices at the cost of recording and transmitting logs across the Internet to a centralised infrastructure. This paper makes a first step in characterising logging practices with a widely adopted mobile analytics logging library, namely Firebase Analytics. We provide an empirical evaluation of the use of Firebase Analytics in 57 open-source Android applications by studying the evolution of code-bases to understand: a) the needs-in-common that push practitioners to adopt logging practices on mobile devices, and b) the differences in the ways developers use local and remote logging. Our results indicate mobile analytics logs are less pervasive and less maintained than traditional logging code. Based on our analysis, we believe logging using mobile analytics is more user centered compared to traditional logging, where the latter is mainly used to record information for debugging purposes.

Logging is a development practice that plays an important role in the operations and monitoring of complex systems. Developers place log statements in the source code and use log data to understand how the system behaves in production. Unfortunately, anticipating where to log during development is challenging. Previous studies show the feasibility of leveraging machine learning to recommend log placement despite the data imbalance since logging is a fraction of the overall code base. However, it remains unknown how those techniques apply to an industry setting, and little is known about the effect of imbalanced data and sampling techniques. In this paper, we study the log placement problem in the code base of Adyen, a large-scale payment company. We analyze 34,526 Java files and 309,527 methods that sum up +2M SLOC. We systematically measure the effectiveness of five models based on code metrics, explore the effect of sampling techniques, understand which features models consider to be relevant for the prediction, and evaluate whether we can exploit 388,086 methods from 29 Apache projects to learn where to log in an industry setting. Our best performing model achieves 79% of balanced accuracy, 81% of precision, 60% of recall. While sampling techniques improve recall, they penalize precision at a prohibitive cost. Experiments with open-source data yield under-performing models over Adyen's test set; nevertheless, they are useful due to their low rate of false positives. Our supporting scripts and tools are available to the community.

Refactoring is the process of changing the internal structure of software to improve its quality without modifying its external behavior. Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that refactoring has a positive impact on the understandability and maintainability of software systems. However, before carrying out refactoring activities, developers need to identify refactoring opportunities. Currently, refactoring opportunity identification heavily relies on developers' expertise and intuition. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms in predicting software refactorings. More specifically, we train six different machine learning algorithms (i.e., Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, Decision Trees, Random Forest, and Neural Network) with a dataset comprising over two million refactorings from 11,149 real-world projects from the Apache, F-Droid, and GitHub ecosystems. The resulting models predict 20 different refactorings at class, method, and variable-levels with an accuracy often higher than 90%. Our results show that (i) Random Forests are the best models for predicting software refactoring, (ii) process and ownership metrics seem to play a crucial role in the creation of better models, and (iii) models generalize well in different contexts.

Refactoring is the process of changing the internal structure of software to improve its quality without modifying its external behavior. Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that refactoring has a positive impact on the understandability and maintainability of software systems. However, before carrying out refactoring activities, developers need to identify refactoring opportunities. Currently, refactoring opportunity identification heavily relies on developers' expertise and intuition. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms in predicting software refactorings. More specifically, we train six different machine learning algorithms (i.e., Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, Decision Trees, Random Forest, and Neural Network) with a dataset comprising over two million refactorings from 11,149 real-world projects from the Apache, F-Droid, and GitHub ecosystems. The resulting models predict 20 different refactorings at class, method, and variable-levels with an accuracy often higher than 90%. Our results show that (i) Random Forests are the best models for predicting software refactoring, (ii) process and ownership metrics seem to play a crucial role in the creation of better models, and (iii) models generalize well in different contexts.

Software developers, including those of the Android mobile platform, constantly seek to improve their applications’ maintainability and evolvability. Code smells are commonly used for this purpose, as they indicate symptoms of design problems. However, although the literature presents a variety of code smells, such as God Class and Long Method, characteristics that are specific to the underlying technologies are not taken into account. The presentation layer of an Android app, for example, implements specific architectural decisions from the Android platform itself (such as the use of Activities, Fragments, and Listeners) as well as deal with and integrate different types of resources (such as layouts and images). Through a three-step study involving 246 Android developers, we investigated code smells that developers perceive for this part of Android apps. We devised 20 specific code smells and collected the developers’ perceptions of their frequency and importance. We also implemented a tool that identifies the proposed code smells and studied their prevalence in 619 open-source Android apps. Our findings suggest that: 1) developers perceive smells specific to the presentation layer of Android apps; 2) developers consider these smells to be of high importance and frequency; and 3) the proposed smells occur in real-world Android apps. Our domain-specific smells can be leveraged by developers, researchers, and tool developers for searching potentially problematic pieces of code.

A linter is a static analysis tool that warns software developers about possible code errors or violations to coding standards. By using such a tool, errors can be surfaced early in the development process when they are cheaper to fix. For a linter to be successful, it is important to understand the needs and challenges of developers when using a linter.