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

Yajing Luo

Yajing Luo contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
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

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Code Smells Detection via Modern Code Review: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities

Code review that detects and locates defects and other quality issues plays an important role in software quality control. One type of issue that may impact the quality of software is code smells. Yet, little is known about the extent to which code smells are identified during modern code review. To investigate the concept behind code smells identified in modern code review and what actions reviewers suggest and developers take in response to the identified smells, we conducted a study of code smells in code reviews by analyzing reviews from four large open source projects from the OpenStack (Nova and Neutron) and Qt (Qt Base and Qt Creator) communities. We manually checked a total of 25,415 code review comments obtained by keywords search and random selection, and identified 1,539 smell-related reviews. Our analysis found that 1) code smells were not commonly identified in code reviews, 2) smells were usually caused by violation of coding conventions, 3) reviewers usually provided constructive feedback, including fixing (refactoring) recommendations to help developers remove smells, 4) developers generally followed those recommendations and actioned the changes, 5) once identified by reviewers, it usually takes developers less than one week to fix the smells, and 6) the main reason why developers chose to ignore the identified smells is not worth fixing the smell. Our results suggest that: 1) developers should closely follow coding conventions in their projects to avoid introducing code smells, 2) review-based detection of code smells is perceived to be a trustworthy approach by developers, mainly because reviews are context-sensitive (as reviewers are more aware of the context of the code given that they are part of the project's development team), and 3) program context needs to be fully considered in order to make a decision of whether to fix the identified code smell immediately.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Decisions in Continuous Integration and Delivery: An Exploratory Study

In recent years, Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) has been heatedly discussed and widely used in part or all of the software development life cycle as the practices and pipeline to deliver software products in an efficient way. There are many tools, such as Travis CI, that offer various features to support the CI/CD pipeline, but there is a lack of understanding about what decisions are frequently made in CI/CD. In this work, we explored one popular open-source project on GitHub, Budibase, to provide insights on the types of decisions made in CI/CD from a practitioners' perspective. We first explored the GitHub Trending page, conducted a pilot repository extraction, and identified the Budibase repository as the case for our study. We then crawled all the closed issues from the repository and got 1,168 closed issues. Irrelevant issues were filtered out based on certain criteria, and 370 candidate issues that contain decisions were obtained for data extraction. We analyzed the issues using a hybrid approach combining pre-defined types and the Constant Comparison method to get the categories of decisions. The results show that the major type of decisions in the Budibase closed issues is Functional Requirement Decision (67.6%), followed by Architecture Decision (11.1%). Our findings encourage developers to put more effort on the issues and making decisions related to CI/CD, and provide researchers with a reference of decision classification made in CI/CD.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access