Impact of Tool Support in Patch Construction
arXiv:1812.07416 · doi:10.1145/3092703.3092713
Abstract
In this work, we investigate the practice of patch construction in the Linux kernel development, focusing on the differences between three patching processes: (1) patches crafted entirely manually to fix bugs, (2) those that are derived from warnings of bug detection tools, and (3) those that are automatically generated based on fix patterns. With this study, we provide to the research community concrete insights on the practice of patching as well as how the development community is currently embracing research and commercial patching tools to improve productivity in repair. The result of our study shows that tool-supported patches are increasingly adopted by the developer community while manually-written patches are accepted more quickly. Patch application tools enable developers to remain committed to contributing patches to the code base. Our findings also include that, in actual development processes, patches generally implement several change operations spread over the code, even for patches fixing warnings by bug detection tools. Finally, this study has shown that there is an opportunity to directly leverage the output of bug detection tools to readily generate patches that are appropriate for fixing the problem, and that are consistent with manually-written patches.
References in corpus (4)
- A Critical Review of "Automatic Patch Generation Learned from Human-Written Patches": Essay on the Problem Statement and the Evaluation of Automatic Software Repair
- Mining Software Repair Models for Reasoning on the Search Space of Automated Program Fixing
- Faults in Linux 2.6
- Harvesting Fix Hints in the History of Bugs
Cited by in corpus (5)
- FixMiner: Mining Relevant Fix Patterns for Automated Program Repair
- iFixR: Bug Report driven Program Repair
- Learning to Catch Security Patches
- AVATAR : Fixing Semantic Bugs with Fix Patterns of Static Analysis Violations
- You Cannot Fix What You Cannot Find! An Investigation of Fault Localization Bias in Benchmarking Automated Program Repair Systems