Paper detail

A First Look at Duplicate and Near-duplicate Self-admitted Technical Debt Comments

Self-admitted technical debt (SATD) refers to technical debt that is intentionally introduced by developers and explicitly documented in code comments or other software artifacts (e.g., issue reports) to annotate sub-optimal decisions made by developers in the software development process. In this work, we take the first look at the existence and characteristics of duplicate and near-duplicate SATD comments in five popular Apache OSS projects, i.e., JSPWiki, Helix, Jackrabbit, Archiva, and SystemML. We design a method to automatically identify groups of duplicate and near-duplicate SATD comments and track their evolution in the software system by mining the commit history of a software project. Leveraging the proposed method, we identified 3,520 duplicate and near-duplicate SATD comments from the target projects, which belong to 1,141 groups. We manually analyze the content and context of a sample of 1,505 SATD comments (by sampling 100 groups for each project) and identify if they annotate the same root cause. We also investigate whether duplicate SATD comments exist in code clones, whether they co-exist in the same file, and whether they are introduced and removed simultaneously. Our preliminary study reveals several surprising findings that would shed light on future studies aiming to improve the management of duplicate SATD comments. For instance, only 48.5% duplicate SATD comment groups with the same root cause exist in regular code clones, and only 33.9% of the duplicate SATD comment pairs are introduced in the same commit.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.