Paper detail

Less is More? An Empirical Study on Configuration Issues in Python PyPI Ecosystem

Python is widely used in the open-source community, largely owing to the extensive support from diverse third-party libraries within the PyPI ecosystem. Nevertheless, the utilization of third-party libraries can potentially lead to conflicts in dependencies, prompting researchers to develop dependency conflict detectors. Moreover, endeavors have been made to automatically infer dependencies. These approaches focus on version-level checks and inference, based on the assumption that configurations of libraries in the PyPI ecosystem are correct. However, our study reveals that this assumption is not universally valid, and relying solely on version-level checks proves inadequate in ensuring compatible run-time environments. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to comprehensively study the configuration issues in the PyPI ecosystem. Specifically, we propose PyConf, a source-level detector, for detecting potential configuration issues. PyConf employs three distinct checks, targeting the setup, packing, and usage stages of libraries, respectively. To evaluate the effectiveness of the current automatic dependency inference approaches, we build a benchmark called VLibs, comprising library releases that pass all three checks of PyConf. We identify 15 kinds of configuration issues and find that 183,864 library releases suffer from potential configuration issues. Remarkably, 68% of these issues can only be detected via the source-level check. Our experiment results show that the most advanced automatic dependency inference approach, PyEGo, can successfully infer dependencies for only 65% of library releases. The primary failures stem from dependency conflicts and the absence of required libraries in the generated configurations. Based on the empirical results, we derive six findings and draw two implications for open-source developers and future research in automatic dependency inference.

preprint2024arXivOpen 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.