research-article

Open access

On the fly synthesis of edit suggestions

Authors:

Anders Miltner,

Arjun Radhakrishna,

Gustavo Soares,

Abhishek UdupaAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, Volume 3, Issue OOPSLA

Article No.: 143, Pages 1 - 29

https://doi.org/10.1145/3360569

Published: 10 October 2019 Publication History

Abstract

When working with a document, users often perform context-specific repetitive edits – changes to the document that are similar but specific to the contexts at their locations. Programming by demonstration/examples (PBD/PBE) systems automate these tasks by learning programs to perform the repetitive edits from demonstration or examples. However, PBD/PBE systems are not widely adopted, mainly because they require modal UIs – users must enter a special mode to give the demonstration/examples. This paper presents Blue-Pencil, a modeless system for synthesizing edit suggestions on the fly. Blue-Pencil observes users as they make changes to the document, silently identifies repetitive changes, and automatically suggests transformations that can apply at other locations. Blue-Pencil is parameterized – it allows the ”plug-and-play” of different PBE engines to support different document types and different kinds of transformations. We demonstrate this parameterization by instantiating Blue-Pencil to several domains – C# and SQL code, markdown documents, and spreadsheets – using various existing PBE engines. Our evaluation on 37 code editing sessions shows that Blue-Pencil synthesized edit suggestions with a precision of 0.89 and a recall of 1.0, and took 199 ms to return suggestions on average. Finally, we report on several improvements based on feedback gleaned from a field study with professional programmers to investigate the use of Blue-Pencil during long code editing sessions. Blue-Pencil has been integrated with Visual Studio IntelliCode to power the IntelliCode refactorings feature.

Supplementary Material

a143-miltner (a143-miltner.webm)

Presentation at OOPSLA '19

Download
97.89 MB

References

[1]

J. Andersen and J. L. Lawall. 2008. Generic Patch Inference. In Proceedings of the 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’08). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 337–346.

Digital Library

[2]

Jesper Andersen, Anh Cuong Nguyen, David Lo, Julia L. Lawall, and Siau-Cheng Khoo. 2012. Semantic Patch Inference. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2012). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 382–385.

Digital Library

[3]

CommonMark. 2019. CommonMark MarkDown Specification. (2019). At https://commonmark.org/ .

[4]

Allen Cypher (Ed.). 1993. Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration. MIT Press.

[5]

Eclipse Foundation. 2019. Eclipse. (2019). At https://www.eclipse.org/ .

[6]

Darren Edge, Sumit Gulwani, Natasa Milic-Frayling, Mohammad Raza, Reza Adhitya Saputra, Chao Wang, and Koji Yatani. 2015. Mixed-Initiative Approaches to Global Editing in Slideware. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3503–3512.

Digital Library

[7]

John K. Feser, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Isil Dillig. 2015. Synthesizing Data Structure Transformations from Input-output Examples. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 229–239.

Digital Library

[8]

J. Nathan Foster, Michael B. Greenwald, Jonathan T. Moore, Benjamin C. Pierce, and Alan Schmitt. 2007. Combinators for Bidirectional Tree Transformations: A Linguistic Approach to the View-update Problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 29, 3, Article 17 (May 2007).

Digital Library

[9]

Stephen R. Foster, William G. Griswold, and Sorin Lerner. 2012. WitchDoctor: IDE Support for Real-time Auto-completion of Refactorings. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’12). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 222–232. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2337223.2337250

Digital Library

[10]

GNU Emacs. 2019. Repeat Commands. https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/efaq/Repeating-commands. html . Accessed: 04/03/2019.

[11]

Sumit Gulwani. 2011. Automating String Processing in Spreadsheets Using Input-output Examples. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 317–330.

Digital Library

[12]

JetBrains. 2019a. IntelliJ. (2019). At https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/ .

[13]

JetBrains. 2019b. ReSharper. (2019). At https://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/ .

[14]

Lingxiao Jiang, Ghassan Misherghi, Zhendong Su, and Stephane Glondu. 2007. DECKARD: scalable and accurate tree-based detection of code clones. 96–105.

Digital Library

[15]

Miryung Kim and David Notkin. 2009. Discovering and Representing Systematic Code Changes. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’09). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 309–319.

Digital Library

[16]

Miryung Kim, Thomas Zimmermann, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2012. A Field Study of Refactoring Challenges and Benefits. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 50, 11 pages.

Digital Library

[17]

Tessa Lau. 2001. Programming by Demonstration: a Machine Learning Approach.

[18]

Tessa Lau. 2008. Why PBD systems fail: Lessons learned for usable AI.

[19]

Tessa Lau, Steven A. Wolfman, Pedro Domingos, and Daniel S. Weld. 2001. Your Wish is My Command. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, Chapter Learning Repetitive Text-editing Procedures with SMARTedit, 209–226. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=369505.369519

Digital Library

[20]

Vu Le and Sumit Gulwani. 2014. FlashExtract: A Framework for Data Extraction by Examples. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’14). New York, NY, USA, 542–553.

Digital Library

[21]

Alan Leung, John Sarracino, and Sorin Lerner. 2015. Interactive Parser Synthesis by Example. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 565–574.

Digital Library

[22]

H. Lieberman. 2001. Your Wish Is My Command: Programming by Example. Morgan Kaufmann.

[23]

Michael Martin, Benjamin Livshits, and Monica S. Lam. 2005. Finding Application Errors and Security Flaws Using PQL: A Program Query Language. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 365–383.

Digital Library

[24]

Na Meng, Miryung Kim, and Kathryn S. McKinley. 2011. Systematic Editing: Generating Program Transformations from an Example. In Proceedings of the 32Nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 329–342.

[25]

Na Meng, Miryung Kim, and Kathryn S. McKinley. 2013. LASE: Locating and Applying Systematic Edits by Learning from Examples. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 502–511.

[26]

T. Mens and T. Tourwe. 2004. A survey of software refactoring. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 2 (Feb 2004), 126–139.

Digital Library

[27]

Microsoft. 2019a. Create or run a macro. https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-or-run-a-macro-C6B99036-905C-49A6-818A-DFB98B7C3C9C . Accessed: 04/03/2019.

[28]

Microsoft. 2019b. Microsoft PowerPoint. (2019). At https://products.office.com/en-us/powerpoint .

[29]

Microsoft. 2019c. Microsoft Word. (2019). At https://products.office.com/en-us/word .

[30]

Microsoft. 2019d. Refactoring source code in Visual Studio Code. (2019). At https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/ refactoring#_code-actions-quick-fixes-and-refactorings .

[31]

Microsoft. 2019e. Visual Studio. (2019). At https://www.visualstudio.com .

[32]

Robert C. Miller and Brad A. Myers. 2002. LAPIS: Smart editing with text structure. In CHI ’02. ACM, 496–497.

[33]

Emerson Murphy-Hill and Andrew P. Black. 2007. High Velocity Refactorings in Eclipse. In Proceedings of the 2007 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (eclipse ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–5.

Digital Library

[34]

E. Murphy-Hill, C. Parnin, and A. P. Black. 2009. How we refactor, and how we know it. In 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. 287–297.

Digital Library

[35]

Stas Negara, Mihai Codoban, Danny Dig, and Ralph E. Johnson. 2014. Mining Fine-grained Code Changes to Detect Unknown Change Patterns. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2014). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 803–813.

Digital Library

[36]

H. A. Nguyen, A. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, T. N. Nguyen, and H. Rajan. 2013. A study of repetitiveness of code changes in software evolution. In 2013 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). 180–190.

[37]

Hoan Anh Nguyen, Tung Thanh Nguyen, Gary Wilson, Jr., Anh Tuan Nguyen, Miryung Kim, and Tien N. Nguyen. 2010. A Graph-based Approach to API Usage Adaptation. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 302–321.

Digital Library

[38]

William F. Opdyke. 1992. Refactoring Object-oriented Frameworks. Ph.D. Dissertation. Champaign, IL, USA. UMI Order No. GAX93-05645.

Digital Library

[39]

Saswat Padhi, Prateek Jain, Daniel Perelman, Oleksandr Polozov, Sumit Gulwani, and Todd Millstein. 2018. FlashProfile: A Framework for Synthesizing Data Profiles. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2, OOPSLA, Article 150 (Oct. 2018), 28 pages.

Digital Library

[40]

J. Park, M. Kim, B. Ray, and D. Bae. 2012. An empirical study of supplementary bug fixes. In 2012 9th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). 40–49.

[41]

Oleksandr Polozov and Sumit Gulwani. 2015. FlashMeta: A Framework for Inductive Program Synthesis. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 542–553.

Digital Library

[42]

Veselin Raychev, Martin Vechev, and Eran Yahav. 2014. Code Completion with Statistical Language Models. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 419–428.

Digital Library

[43]

Refsnes Data. 2019. XPath Tutorial. (2019). At https://www.w3schools.com/xml/xpath_intro.asp .

[44]

Reudismam Rolim, Gustavo Soares, Loris D’Antoni, Oleksandr Polozov, Sumit Gulwani, Rohit Gheyi, Ryo Suzuki, and Björn Hartmann. 2017. Learning Syntactic Program Transformations from Examples. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’17). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 404–415.

Digital Library

[45]

Rishabh Singh and Sumit Gulwani. 2012. Synthesizing Number Transformations from Input-output Examples. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’12). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 634–651.

Digital Library

[46]

Stack Exchange. 2019. How to programmatically edit all hyperlinks in a Word document? https://stackoverflow.com/q/ 3355266 . Accessed: 04/03/2019.

[47]

Friedrich Steimann and Jens von Pilgrim. 2012. Refactorings Without Names. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2012). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 290–293.

Digital Library

[48]

Vim. 2019. Macros. https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Macros . Accessed: 04/03/2019.

[49]

Navid Yaghmazadeh, Xinyu Wang, and Isil Dillig. 2018. Automated Migration of Hierarchical Data to Relational Tables Using Programming-by-example. Proc. VLDB Endow. 11, 5 (Jan. 2018), 580–593.

Digital Library

[50]

Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Miltiadis Allamanis, Marc Brockschmidt, and Alexander L. Gaunt. 2019. Learning to Represent Edits. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJl6AjC5F7

Cited By

Matute GNi WBarik TCheung AChasins S(2024)Syntactic Code Search with Sequence-to-Tree Matching: Supporting Syntactic Search with Incomplete Code FragmentsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564608:PLDI(2051-2072)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656460
Ketkar ARamos DClapp LBarik RRamanathan M(2024)A Lightweight Polyglot Code Transformation LanguageProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564298:PLDI(1288-1312)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656429
Sato SNakamaru T(2024)Multiverse Notebook: Shifting Data Scientists to Time TravelersProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36498388:OOPSLA1(754-783)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649838
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

On the fly synthesis of edit suggestions
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. Development frameworks and environments
      1. Integrated and visual development environments
    2. Software maintenance tools

Recommendations

Learning syntactic program transformations from examples
ICSE '17: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering

Automatic program transformation tools can be valuable for programmers to help them with refactoring tasks, and for Computer Science students in the form of tutoring systems that suggest repairs to programming assignments. However, manually creating ...
Can reactive synthesis and syntax-guided synthesis be friends?
SPLASH Companion 2021: Companion Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity

While reactive synthesis and syntax-guided synthesis (SyGuS) have seen enormous progress in recent years, combining the two approaches has remained a challenge. In this work, we present the synthesis of reactive programs from Temporal Stream Logic ...
Optimizing synthesis with metasketches
POPL '16

Many advanced programming tools---for both end-users and expert developers---rely on program synthesis to automatically generate implementations from high-level specifications. These tools often need to employ tricky, custom-built synthesis algorithms ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages Volume 3, Issue OOPSLA

October 2019

2077 pages

EISSN:2475-1421

DOI:10.1145/3366395

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 October 2019

Published in PACMPL Volume 3, Issue OOPSLA

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Artifacts Evaluated & Functional

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

37
Total Citations
View Citations
975
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)179
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)35

Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Matute GNi WBarik TCheung AChasins S(2024)Syntactic Code Search with Sequence-to-Tree Matching: Supporting Syntactic Search with Incomplete Code FragmentsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564608:PLDI(2051-2072)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656460
Ketkar ARamos DClapp LBarik RRamanathan M(2024)A Lightweight Polyglot Code Transformation LanguageProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564298:PLDI(1288-1312)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656429
Sato SNakamaru T(2024)Multiverse Notebook: Shifting Data Scientists to Time TravelersProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36498388:OOPSLA1(754-783)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649838
Bairi RSonwane AKanade AC. VIyer AParthasarathy SRajamani SAshok BShet S(2024)CodePlan: Repository-Level Coding using LLMs and PlanningProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36437571:FSE(675-698)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643757
Dilhara MBellur ABryksin TDig D(2024)Unprecedented Code Change Automation: The Fusion of LLMs and Transformation by ExampleProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36437551:FSE(631-653)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643755
Abdollahi FAmeen STaylor MLelis LElkind E(2023)Can you improve my code? optimizing programs with local searchProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2023/328(2940-2948)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2023/328
Wang SLin BSun ZWen MLiu YLei YMao X(2023)Two Birds with One Stone: Boosting Code Generation and Code Search via a Generative Adversarial NetworkProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36228157:OOPSLA2(486-515)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622815
Gupta PKhare ABajpai YChakraborty SGulwani SKanade ARadhakrishna ASoares GTiwari AChandra SBlincoe KTonella P(2023)Grace: Language Models Meet Code EditsProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3616253(1483-1495)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3611643.3616253
Wu JWei LJiang YCheung SRen LXu C(2023)Programming by Example Made EasyACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/360718533:1(1-36)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3607185
Wu ZLi JMa KKambhamettu HHead A(2023)FFL: A Language and Live Runtime for Styling and Labeling Typeset Math FormulasProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3586183.3606731(1-16)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3586183.3606731
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents