Despite being introduced only a few years ago, Large Language Models (LLMs) are already widely used by developers for code generation. However, their application in automating other Software Engineering activities remains largely unexplored. Thus, in this paper, we report the first results of a study in which we are exploring the use of ChatGPT to support API migration tasks, an important problem that demands manual effort and attention from developers. Specifically, in the paper, we share our initial results involving the use of ChatGPT to migrate a client application to use a newer version of SQLAlchemy, an ORM (Object Relational Mapping) library widely used in Python. We evaluate the use of three types of prompts (Zero-Shot, One-Shot, and Chain Of Thoughts) and show that the best results are achieved by the One-Shot prompt, followed by the Chain Of Thoughts. Particularly, with the One-Shot prompt we were able to successfully migrate all columns of our target application and upgrade its code to use new functionalities enabled by SQLAlchemy’s latest version, such as Python’s asyncio and typing modules, while preserving the original code behavior.

Software bots connect users and tools, streamlining the pull request review process in social coding platforms. However, bots can introduce information overload into developers’ communication. Information overload is especially problematic for newcomers, who are still exploring the project and may feel overwhelmed by the number of messages. Inspired by the literature of other domains, we designed and evaluated FunnelBot, a bot that acts as a mediator between developers and other bots in the repository. We conducted a within-subject study with 25 newcomers to capture their perceptions and preferences. Our results provide insights for bot developers who want to mitigate noise and create bots for supporting newcomers, laying a foundation for designing better bots.

Self-admitted technical debt (SATD) is a particular case of Technical Debt (TD) where developers explicitly acknowledge their sub-optimal implementation decisions. Previous studies mine SATD by searching for specific TD-related terms in source code comments. By contrast, in this paper we argue that developers can admit technical debt by other means, e.g., by creating issues in tracking systems and labelling them as referring to TD. We refer to this type of SATD as issue-based SATD or just SATD-I. We study a sample of 286 SATD-I instances collected from five open source projects, including Microsoft Visual Studio and GitLab Community Edition. We show that only 29% of the studied SATD-I instances can be tracked to source code comments. We also show that SATD-I issues take more time to be closed, compared to other issues, although they are not more complex in terms of code churn. Besides, in 45% of the studied issues TD was introduced to ship earlier, and in almost 60% it refers to DESIGN flaws. Finally, we report that most developers pay SATD-I to reduce its costs or interests (66%). Our findings suggest that there is space for designing novel tools to support technical debt management, particularly tools that encourage developers to create and label issues containing TD concerns.

Modern software development depends on APIs to reuse code and increase productivity. As most software systems, these libraries and frameworks also evolve, which may break existing clients. However, the main reasons to introduce breaking changes in APIs are unclear. Therefore, in this paper, we report the results of an almost 4-month long field study with the developers of 400 popular Java libraries and frameworks. We configured an infrastructure to observe all changes in these libraries and to detect breaking changes shortly after their introduction in the code. After identifying breaking changes, we asked the developers to explain the reasons behind their decision to change the APIs. During the study, we identified 59 breaking changes, confirmed by the developers of 19 projects. By analyzing the developers' answers, we report that breaking changes are mostly motivated by the need to implement new features, by the desire to make the APIs simpler and with fewer elements, and to improve maintainability. We conclude by providing suggestions to language designers, tool builders, software engineering researchers and API developers.

Libraries are commonly used to increase productivity. As most software systems, they evolve over time and changes are required. However, this process may involve breaking compatibility with previous versions, leading clients to fail. In this context, it is important that libraries creators and clients frequently assess API stability in order to better support their maintenance practices. In this paper, we introduce APIDIFF, a tool to identify API breaking and non-breaking changes between two versions of a Java library. The tool detects changes on three API elements: types, methods, and fields. We also report usage scenarios of APIDIFF with four real-world Java libraries.

Change is a routine in software development. Like any system, libraries also evolve over time. As a consequence, clients are compelled to update and, thus, benefit from the available API improvements. However, some of these API changes may break contracts previously established, resulting in compilation errors and behavioral changes. In this paper, we study a set of questions regarding API breaking changes. Our goal is to measure the amount of breaking changes on real-world libraries and its impact on clients at a large-scale level. We assess (i) the frequency of breaking changes, (ii) the behavior of these changes over time, (iii) the impact on clients, and (iv) the characteristics of libraries with high frequency of breaking changes. Our large-scale analysis on 317 real-world Java libraries, 9K releases, and 260K client applications shows that (i) 14.78% of the API changes break compatibility with previous versions, (ii) the frequency of breaking changes increases over time, (iii) 2.54% of their clients are impacted, and (iv) systems with higher frequency of breaking changes are larger, more popular, and more active. Based on these results, we provide a set of lessons to better support library and client developers in their maintenance tasks.

Breaking contracts have a major impact on API clients. Despite this fact, recent studies show that libraries are often backward incompatible and that the rate of breaking changes increase over time. However, the specific reasons that motivate library developers to break contracts with their clients are still unclear. In this paper, we describe a qualitative study with library developers and real instance of API breaking changes. Our goal is to (i) elicit the reasons why developers introduce breaking changes; and (ii) check if they are aware about the risks of such changes. Our survey with the top contributors of popular Java libraries contributes to reveal a list of five reasons why developers break API contracts. Moreover, it also shows that most of developers are aware of these risks and, in some cases, adopt strategies to mitigate them. We conclude by prospecting a future study to strengthen our current findings. With this study, we expect to contribute on delineating tools to better assess the risks and impacts of API breaking changes.