Paper detail

Extracting Concise Bug-Fixing Patches from Human-Written Patches in Version Control Systems

High-quality and large-scale repositories of real bugs and their concise patches collected from real-world applications are critical for research in software engineering community. In such a repository, each real bug is explicitly associated with its fix. Therefore, on one side, the real bugs and their fixes} may inspire novel approaches for finding, locating, and repairing software bugs; on the other side, the real bugs and their fixes are indispensable for rigorous and meaningful evaluation of approaches for software testing, fault localization, and program repair. To this end, a number of such repositories, e.g., Defects4J, have been proposed. However, such repositories are rather small because their construction involves expensive human intervention. Although bug-fixing code commits as well as associated test cases could be retrieved from version control systems automatically, existing approaches could not yet automatically extract concise bug-fixing patches from bug-fixing commits because such commits often involve bug-irrelevant changes. In this paper, we propose an automatic approach, called BugBuilder, to extracting complete and concise bug-fixing patches from human-written patches in version control systems. It excludes refactorings by detecting refactorings involved in bug-fixing commits, and reapplying detected refactorings on the faulty version. It enumerates all subsets of the remaining part and validates them on test cases. If none of the subsets has the potential to be a complete bug-fixing patch, the remaining part as a whole is taken as a complete and concise bug-fixing patch. Evaluation results on 809 real bug-fixing commits in Defects4J suggest that BugBuilder successfully generated complete and concise bug-fixing patches for forty percent of the bug-fixing commits, and its precision (99%) was even higher than human experts.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.