BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Sarah Nadi

Sarah Nadi contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringComputation and LanguageInformation Retrieval

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Does This Apply to Me? An Empirical Study of Technical Context in Stack Overflow

Stack Overflow has become an essential technical resource for developers. However, given the vast amount of knowledge available on Stack Overflow, finding the right information that is relevant for a given task is still challenging, especially when a developer is looking for a solution that applies to their specific requirements or technology stack. Clearly marking answers with their technical context, i.e., the information that characterizes the technologies and assumptions needed for this answer, is potentially one way to improve navigation. However, there is no information about how often such context is mentioned, and what kind of information it might offer. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to understand the occurrence of technical context in Stack Overflow answers and comments, using tags as a proxy for technical context. We specifically focus on additional context, where answers/comments mention information that is not already discussed in the question. Our results show that nearly half of our studied threads contain at least one additional context. We find that almost 50% of the additional context are either a library/framework, a programming language, a tool/application, an API, or a database. Overall, our findings show the promise of using additional context as navigational cues.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Operation-based Refactoring-aware Merging: An Empirical Evaluation

Dealing with merge conflicts in version control systems is a challenging task for software developers. Resolving merge conflicts is a time-consuming and error-prone process, which distracts developers from important tasks. Recent work shows that refactorings are often involved in merge conflicts and that refactoring-related conflicts tend to be larger, making them harder to resolve. In the literature, there are two refactoring-aware merging techniques that claim to automatically resolve refactoring-related conflicts; however, these two techniques have never been empirically compared. In this paper, we present RefMerge, a rejuvenated Java-based design and implementation of the first technique, which is an operation-based refactoring-aware merging algorithm. We compare RefMerge to Git and the state-of-the-art graph-based refactoring-aware merging tool, IntelliMerge, on 2,001 merge scenarios with refactoring-related conflicts from 20 open-source projects. We find that RefMerge resolves or reduces conflicts in 497 (25%) merge scenarios while increasing conflicting LOC in only 214 (11%) scenarios. On the other hand, we find that IntelliMerge resolves or reduces conflicts in 478 (24%) merge scenarios but increases conflicting LOC in 597 (30%) merge scenarios. We additionally conduct a qualitative analysis of the differences between the three merging algorithms and provide insights of the strengths and weaknesses of each tool. We find that while IntelliMerge does well with ordering and formatting conflicts, it struggles with class-level refactorings and scenarios with several refactorings. On the other hand, RefMerge is resilient to the number of refactorings in a merge scenario, but we find that RefMerge introduces conflicts when inverting move-related refactorings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

On Using Stack Overflow Comment-Edit Pairs to recommend code maintenance changes

Code maintenance data sets typically consist of a before and after version of the code that contains the improvement or fix. Such data sets are important for software engineering support tools related to code maintenance, such as program repair, code recommender systems, or Application Programming Interface (API) misuse detection. Most of the current data sets are constructed from mining commit history in version-control systems or issues in issue-tracking systems. In this paper, we investigate whether Stack Overflow can be used as an additional data source. Comments on Stack Overflow provide an effective way for developers to point out problems with existing answers, alternative solutions, or pitfalls. In this paper, we mine comment-edit pairs from Stack Overflow and investigate their potential usefulness. These pairs have the added benefit of having concrete descriptions of why the change is needed as well as potentially having less tangled changes to deal with. We first design a technique to extract related comment-edit pairs and then investigate the nature of these pairs. We find that the majority of comment-edit pairs are not tangled, but only 27% of the studied pairs are potentially useful for the above applications. We categorize the types of mined pairs and find that the highest ratio of useful pairs come from categories Correction, Obsolete, Flaw, and Extension. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our extracted pairs, we submitted 15 pull requests on GitHub, 10 of which have been accepted to widely used repositories such as Apache Beam and nltk. Our work is the first to investigate Stack Overflow comment-edit pairs and opens the door for future work in this direction. Based on our findings and observations, we provide concrete suggestions on how to potentially identify a larger set of useful comment-edit pairs, which can also be facilitated by our shared data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

ConfigFix: Interactive Configuration Conflict Resolution for the Linux Kernel

Highly configurable systems are highly complex systems, with the Linux kernel arguably being one of the most well-known ones. Since 2007, it has been a frequent target of the research community, conducting empirical studies and building dedicated methods and tools for analyzing, configuring, testing, optimizing, and maintaining the kernel in the light of its vast configuration space. However, despite a large body of work, mainly bug fixes that were the result of such research made it back into the kernel's source tree. Unfortunately, Linux users still struggle with kernel configuration and resolving configuration conflicts, since the kernel largely lacks automated support. Additionally, there are technical and community requirements for supporting automated conflict resolution in the kernel, such as, for example, using a pure C-based solution that uses only compatible third-party libraries (if any). With the aim of contributing back to the Linux community, we present CONFIGFIX, a tooling that we integrated with the kernel configurator, that is purely implemented in C, and that is finally a working solution able to produce fixes for configuration conflicts. In this experience report, we describe our experiences ranging over a decade of building upon the large body of work from research on the Linux kernel configuration mechanisms as well as how we designed and realized CONFIGFIX while adhering to the Linux kernel's community requirements and standards. While CONFIGFIX helps Linux kernel users obtaining their desired configuration, the sound semantic abstraction we implement provides the basis for many of the above techniques supporting kernel configuration, helping researchers and kernel developers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Essential Sentences for Navigating Stack Overflow Answers

Stack Overflow (SO) has become an essential resource for software development. Despite its success and prevalence, navigating SO remains a challenge. Ideally, SO users could benefit from highlighted navigational cues that help them decide if an answer is relevant to their task and context. Such navigational cues could be in the form of essential sentences that help the searcher decide whether they want to read the answer or skip over it. In this paper, we compare four potential approaches for identifying essential sentences. We adopt two existing approaches and develop two new approaches based on the idea that contextual information in a sentence (e.g., "if using windows") could help identify essential sentences. We compare the four techniques using a survey of 43 participants. Our participants indicate that it is not always easy to figure out what the best solution for their specific problem is, given the options, and that they would indeed like to easily spot contextual information that may narrow down the search. Our quantitative comparison of the techniques shows that there is no single technique sufficient for identifying essential sentences that can serve as navigational cues, while our qualitative analysis shows that participants valued explanations and specific conditions, and did not value filler sentences or speculations. Our work sheds light on the importance of navigational cues, and our findings can be used to guide future research to find the best combination of techniques to identify such cues.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access