Abstract

Static analysis tools (e.g., FindBugs) are widely used to detect potential defects in software development. A recent study suggests that there is a moderate correlation between the alerts reported by static analysis tools and software defects [1]. However, despite the actionable alerts reported by static analysis tools, they may report too many meaningless unactionable alerts. Actionable alert refers to the alert which is meaningful and fixable. Unactionable alert (i.e., false positive alert) refers to the alert which is regarded as unimportant to developers, inessential to source code, or will not be fixed by developers. Are all alerts (including both actionable and unactionable alerts) suitable for indicating software defects? To address this question, we classify all the alerts into two categories, namely actionable alerts and unactionable alerts. By the following, we conduct an empirical study to evaluate the degree of correlation between defects and alerts on the evolution of three open source projects with totally 40 releases. The objective of the study is to explore two kinds of correlation analysis: one is the correlation between all the alerts reported by FindBugs and defects among the release history of a project, the other is the correlation between the actionable alerts and defects. As a result, we find that not all the alerts but the actionable alerts are suitable to be an early predictor of defects.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.