research-article

Assessing the quality of the steps to reproduce in bug reports

Authors:

Oscar Chaparro,

Carlos Bernal-Cárdenas,

Andrian Marcus,

Massimiliano Di Penta,

Denys Poshyvanyk,

Vincent NgAuthors Info & Claims

ESEC/FSE 2019: Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Pages 86 - 96

https://doi.org/10.1145/3338906.3338947

Published: 12 August 2019 Publication History

Abstract

A major problem with user-written bug reports, indicated by developers and documented by researchers, is the (lack of high) quality of the reported steps to reproduce the bugs. Low-quality steps to reproduce lead to excessive manual effort spent on bug triage and resolution. This paper proposes Euler, an approach that automatically identifies and assesses the quality of the steps to reproduce in a bug report, providing feedback to the reporters, which they can use to improve the bug report. The feedback provided by Euler was assessed by external evaluators and the results indicate that Euler correctly identified 98% of the existing steps to reproduce and 58% of the missing ones, while 73% of its quality annotations are correct.

References

[1]

Young-Min Baek and Doo-Hwan Bae. 2016. Automated Model-based Android GUI Testing Using Multi-level GUI Comparison Criteria. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’16). 238–249.

Digital Library

[2]

Nicolas Bettenburg, Sascha Just, Adrian Schröter, Cathrin Weiss, Rahul Premraj, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2008. What Makes a Good Bug Report?. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’08). 308–318.

Digital Library

[3]

Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 5 (2017), 135–146.

[4]

Silvia Breu, Rahul Premraj, Jonathan Sillito, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2010. Information Needs in Bug Reports: Improving Cooperation Between Developers and Users. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’10). 301–310.

Digital Library

[5]

Oscar Chaparro, Jing Lu, Fiorella Zampetti, Laura Moreno, Massimiliano Di Penta, Andrian Marcus, Gabriele Bavota, and Vincent Ng. 2017. Detecting Missing Information in Bug Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Meeting on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE’17). 396–407.

Digital Library

[6]

Alexis Conneau, Germán Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loïc Barrault, and Marco Baroni. 2018. What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties. CoRR abs/1805.01070 (2018).

[7]

Steven Davies and Marc Roper. 2014. What’s in a bug report?. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM’14). 26:1–26:10.

Digital Library

[8]

Bogdan Dit, Denys Poshyvanyk, and Andrian Marcus. 2008. Measuring the semantic similarity of comments in bug reports. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Technologies in System Maintenance (STSM’08). 265–280.

[9]

Mona Erfani Joorabchi, Mehdi Mirzaaghaei, and Ali Mesbah. 2014. Works for Me! Characterizing Non-reproducible Bug Reports. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’14). 62–71.

Digital Library

[10]

Mattia Fazzini, Martin Prammer, Marcelo d’Amorim, and Alessandro Orso. 2018. Automatically translating bug reports into test cases for mobile apps. In Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA’18). 141–152.

Digital Library

[11]

Philip J. Guo, Thomas Zimmermann, Nachiappan Nagappan, and Brendan Murphy. 2010. Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: an empirical study of Microsoft Windows. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’10), Vol. 1. 495–504.

Digital Library

[12]

Pieter Hooimeijer and Westley Weimer. 2007. Modeling Bug Report Quality. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’07). 34–43.

Digital Library

[13]

Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional LSTM-CRF Models for Sequence Tagging. CoRR abs/1508.01991 (2015).

[14]

Gün Karagöz and Hasan Sözer. 2017. Reproducing failures based on semiformal failure scenario descriptions. Software Quality Journal 25, 1 (2017), 111–129.

Digital Library

[15]

Andrew J. Ko, Brad A Myers, and Duen Horng Chau. 2006. A Linguistic Analysis of How People Describe Software Problems. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC’06). 127–134.

Digital Library

[16]

Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural Architectures for Named Entity Recognition. In Proceedings of North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT’16). 260–270.

[17]

Eero I. Laukkanen and Mika V. Mäntylä. 2011. Survey Reproduction of Defect Reporting in Industrial Software Development. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM’11). 197– 206.

Digital Library

[18]

Erik Linstead and Pierre Baldi. 2009. Mining the coherence of GNOME bug reports with statistical topic models. In Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’09). 99–102.

Digital Library

[19]

Xuezhe Ma and Eduard Hovy. 2016. End-to-end Sequence Labeling via Bidirectional LSTM-CNNs-CRF. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’16), Vol. 1. 1064–1074.

[20]

Christopher D Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Rose Finkel, Steven Bethard, and David McClosky. 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’14). 55–60.

[21]

Kevin Moran, Mario Linares-Váquez, Carlos Bernal-Cárdenas, Christopher Vendome, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2016. Automatically Discovering, Reporting and Reproducing Android Application Crashes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST’16). 33–44.

[22]

Kevin Moran, Mario Linares-Vásquez, Carlos Bernal-Cárdenas, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2015. Auto-completing Bug Reports for Android Applications. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’15). 673–686.

Digital Library

[23]

Kevin Moran, Mario Linares-Vasquez, Carlos Bernal-Cardenas, Cristopher Vendome, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2017. CrashScope: A Practical Tool for Automated Testing of Android Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’17). 15–18.

Digital Library

[24]

Abraham Naftali Oppenheim. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Pinter Publishers.

[25]

Lance A Ramshaw and Mitchell P Marcus. 1999. Text chunking using transformation-based learning. In Natural language processing using very large corpora. 157–176.

[26]

Swarup Kumar Sahoo, John Criswell, and Vikram Adve. 2010. An empirical study of reported bugs in server software with implications for automated bug diagnosis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’10). 485–494.

Digital Library

[27]

Tommaso Dal Sasso, Andrea Mocci, and Michele Lanza. 2016. What Makes a Satisficing Bug Report?. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS’16). 164–174.

[28]

Donna Spencer. 2009. Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.

[29]

Ashish Sureka and Pankaj Jalote. 2010. Detecting Duplicate Bug Report Using Character N-Gram-Based Features. In Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’10). 366–374.

Digital Library

[30]

Jie Yang, Shuailong Liang, and Yue Zhang. 2018. Design Challenges and Misconceptions in Neural Sequence Labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’18). 3879–3889.

[31]

Jie Yang and Yue Zhang. 2018. NCRF++: An Open-source Neural Sequence Labeling Toolkit. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’18).

[32]

Razieh Nokhbeh Zaeem, Mukul R. Prasad, and Sarfraz Khurshid. 2014. Automated Generation of Oracles for Testing User-Interaction Features of Mobile Apps. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST’14). 183–192.

Digital Library

[33]

Marcelo Serrano Zanetti, Ingo Scholtes, Claudio Juan Tessone, and Frank Schweitzer. 2013. Categorizing Bugs with Social Networks: A Case Study on Four Open Source Software Communities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’13). 1032–1041.

Digital Library

[34]

Tao Zhang, Jiachi Chen, He Jiang, Xiapu Luo, and Xin Xia. 2017. Bug Report Enrichment with Application of Automated Fixer Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’17). 230–240.

Digital Library

[35]

Yu Zhao, Tingting Yu, Ting Su, Yang Liu, Wei Zheng, Jingzhi Zhang, and William G.J. Halfond. 2019. ReCDroid: Automatically Reproducing Android Application Crashes from Bug Reports. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’19). 128–139.

Digital Library

[36]

Thomas Zimmermann, Nachiappan Nagappan, Philip J. Guo, and Brendan Murphy. 2012. Characterizing and predicting which bugs get reopened. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’12). 1074–1083.

Digital Library

[37]

Thomas Zimmermann, Rahul Premraj, Nicolas Bettenburg, Sascha Just, Adrian Schröter, and Cathrin Weiss. 2010. What Makes a Good Bug Report? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36, 5 (2010), 618–643.

Digital Library

Cited By

Chaves LOliveira FTiago Ld'Amorim M(2024)Automating Issue Reporting in Software Testing: Lessons Learned from Using the Template Generator ToolCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3663529.3663847(278-282)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3663529.3663847
Zhang ZTawsif FRyu KYu THalfond W(2024)Mobile Bug Report Reproduction via Global Search on the App UI ModelProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36608241:FSE(2656-2676)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660824
Iannone ESellitto GIaccarino EFerrucci FDe Lucia APalomba F(2024)Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be?ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/365444333:6(1-41)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654443
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Assessing the quality of the steps to reproduce in bug reports
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software post-development issues
      1. Maintaining software

Recommendations

BEE: a tool for structuring and analyzing bug reports
ESEC/FSE 2020: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

This paper introduces BEE, a tool that automatically analyzes user-written bug reports and provides feedback to reporters and developers about the system’s observed behavior (OB), expected behavior (EB), and the steps to reproduce the bug (S2R). BEE ...
Quality of bug reports in Eclipse
eclipse '07: Proceedings of the 2007 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange

The information in bug reports influences the speed at which bugs are fixed. However, bug reports differ in their quality of information. We conducted a survey among ECLIPSE developers to determine the information in reports that they widely used and ...
Predicting Reassignments of Bug Reports - An Exploratory Investigation
CSMR '13: Proceedings of the 2013 17th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering

Bug tracking systems play an important role in the software development process since they allow users to report bugs they have encountered. Unfortunately, the information provided in the bug reports may contain errors since the reporter is not always ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ESEC/FSE 2019: Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

August 2019

1264 pages

ISBN:9781450355728

DOI:10.1145/3338906

General Chairs:
Marlon Dumas
University of Tartu, Estonia
,
Dietmar Pfahl
University of Tartu, Estonia
,
Program Chairs:
Sven Apel
Saarland University, Germany
,
Alessandra Russo
Imperial College, UK

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 August 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Distinguished Paper

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ESEC/FSE '19

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT

ESEC/FSE '19: 27th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

August 26 - 30, 2019

Tallinn, Estonia

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 112 of 543 submissions, 21%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

50
Total Citations
View Citations
627
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)73
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Chaves LOliveira FTiago Ld'Amorim M(2024)Automating Issue Reporting in Software Testing: Lessons Learned from Using the Template Generator ToolCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3663529.3663847(278-282)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3663529.3663847
Zhang ZTawsif FRyu KYu THalfond W(2024)Mobile Bug Report Reproduction via Global Search on the App UI ModelProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36608241:FSE(2656-2676)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660824
Iannone ESellitto GIaccarino EFerrucci FDe Lucia APalomba F(2024)Early and Realistic Exploitability Prediction of Just-Disclosed Software Vulnerabilities: How Reliable Can It Be?ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/365444333:6(1-41)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654443
Wang DZhao YFeng SZhang ZHalfond WChen CSun XShi JYu TChristakis MPradel M(2024)Feedback-Driven Automated Whole Bug Report Reproduction for Android AppsProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3650212.3680341(1048-1060)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3650212.3680341
Pepe FNardone VMastropaolo ABavota GCanfora GDi Penta MBaysal OLinares-Vasquez MMoran KSteinmacher I(2024)How do Hugging Face Models Document Datasets, Bias, and Licenses? An Empirical StudyProceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension10.1145/3643916.3644412(370-381)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643916.3644412
Kallis RColavito GAl-Kaswan APascarella LChaparro ORani PIzadi MDi Sorbo APanichella S(2024)The NLBSE'24 Tool CompetitionProceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE International Workshop on NL-based Software Engineering10.1145/3643787.3648038(33-40)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643787.3648038
Sülün ESaçakçı MTüzün E(2024)An Empirical Analysis of Issue Templates Usage in Large-Scale Projects on GitHubACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/364367333:5(1-28)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643673
Fu YWang TLi SDing JZhou SJia ZLi WJiang YLiao XRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)MissConf: LLM-Enhanced Reproduction of Configuration-Triggered BugsProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3647635(484-495)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3647635
Mahmud JRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Toward Rapid Bug Resolution for Android AppsProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3639812(237-241)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3639812
Huang YWang JLiu ZWang YWang SChen CHu YWang QRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)CrashTranslator: Automatically Reproducing Mobile Application Crashes Directly from Stack TraceProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3623298(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597503.3623298
Show More Cited By

View Options

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 Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents