In this short paper, we analyse "gender" perspectives from a survey of three hundred and seventy-eight industry developers on two aspects of IT industry developer practice: bugs and Automatic Program Repair. We also explore questions of how developers view their job satisfaction. Our key motivation was to show whether there was a difference in the way that males and females viewed these three important concepts. From a total of thirteen survey questions analysed, only two showed any statistical difference between the responses of females compared to males. Those differences were found exclusively in the job satisfaction part of the survey. In terms of the way that male or female developers think about technical activities per se and diversity and inclusivity more generally, we therefore have the paradoxical issue of whether gender comparisons have any basis. We all think the same way about technical-oriented activities, so perhaps we need to stop trying to find differences and division.

Automatic program repair (APR) is a rapidly advancing field of software engineering that aims to supplement or replace manual bug fixing with an automated tool. For APR to be successfully adopted in industry, it is vital that APR tools respond to developer needs and preferences. However, very little research has considered developers' general attitudes to APR or developers' current bug fixing practices (the activity APR aims to replace). This paper responds to this gap by reporting on a survey of 386 software developers about their bug finding and fixing practices and experiences, and their instinctive attitudes towards APR. We find that bug finding and fixing is not necessarily as onerous for developers as has often been suggested, being rated as more satisfying than developers' general work. The fact that developers derive satisfaction and benefit from bug fixing indicates that APR adoption is not as simple as APR replacing an unwanted activity. When it comes to potential APR approaches, we find a strong preference for developers being kept in the loop (for example, choosing between different fixes or validating fixes) as opposed to a fully automated process. This suggests that advances in APR should be careful to consider the agency of the developer, as well as what information is presented to developers alongside fixes. It also indicates that there are key barriers related to trust that would need to be overcome for full scale APR adoption, supported by the fact that even those developers who stated that they were positive about APR listed several caveats and concerns. We find very few statistically significant relationships between particular demographic variables (for example, developer experience, age, education) and key attitudinal variables, suggesting that developers' instinctive attitudes towards APR are little influenced by experience level but are held widely across the developer community.

Automatic program repair (APR) offers significant potential for automating some coding tasks. Using APR could reduce the high costs historically associated with fixing code faults and deliver significant benefits to software engineering. Adopting APR could also have profound implications for software developers’ daily activities, transforming their work practices. To realise the benefits of APR it is vital that we consider how developers feel about APR and the impact APR may have on developers’ work. Developing APR tools without consideration of the developer is likely to undermine the success of APR deployment. In this paper, we critically review how developers are considered in APR research by analysing how human factors are treated in 260 studies from Monperrus’s Living Review of APR. Over half of the 260 studies in our review were motivated by a problem faced by developers (e.g., the difficulty associated with fixing faults). Despite these human-oriented motivations, fewer than 7% of the 260 studies included a human study. We looked in detail at these human studies and found their quality mixed (for example, one human study was based on input from only one developer). Our results suggest that software developers are often talkedaboutin APR studies, but are rarely talkedwith. A more comprehensive and reliable understanding of developer human factors in relation to APR is needed. Without this understanding, it will be difficult to develop APR tools and techniques which integrate effectively into developers’ workflows. We recommend a future research agenda to advance the study of human factors in APR.

In this short paper, we explore the Pareto principle, sometimes known as the “80-20” rule as part of the refactoring process. We explore five frequently applied refactorings, namely extract method, extract variable, rename variable, rename method and change variable type from a data set of forty open-source systems and nearly two hundred thousand refactorings. We address two key research questions. Firstly, do 80% of “buggy” refactorings (where a refactoring has induced a bug fix) arise from just 20% of commits and, secondly, does the same rule apply to “non-buggy” refactorings when applied to the same systems? To facilitate our analysis, we used refactoring and bug data from a study by Di Penta et al. Results showed that refactorings inducing bugs were clustered around a more concentrated set of commits than refactorings that did not induce bugs. One refactoring ‘change variable type’ stood out - it almost conformed to an 80-20 rule. The take-away message is, as the saying goes, that too much of a “good” thing [refactoring] could actually be a “bad” thing.

This paper reports on qualitative research into automatic program repair (APR) at Bloomberg. Six focus groups were conducted with a total of seventeen participants (including both developers of the APR tool and developers using the tool) to consider: the development at Bloomberg of a prototype APR tool (Fixie); developers’ early experiences using the tool; and developers’ perspectives on how they would like to interact with the tool in future. APR is developing rapidly and it is important to understand in greater detail developers' experiences using this emerging technology. In this paper, we provide in-depth, qualitative data from an industrial setting. We found that the development of APR at Bloomberg had become increasingly user-centered, emphasising how fixes were presented to developers, as well as particular features, such as customisability. From the focus groups with developers who had used Fixie, we found particular concern with the pragmatic aspects of APR, such as how and when fixes were presented to them. Based on our findings, we make a series of recommendations to inform future APR development, highlighting how APR tools should 'start small', be customisable, and fit with developers' workflows. We also suggest that APR tools should capitalise on the promise of repair bots and draw on advances in explainable AI.

Automatic Program Repair (APR) has been proposed to help developers and reduce the time spent repairing programs. Recent APR tools have applied learned templates (fix patterns) to fix code using knowledge from fixes successfully applied in the past. However, there is still no general agreement on the representation of fix patterns, making their application and comparison with a baseline difficult. As a consequence, it is also difficult to expand fix patterns and further enable APR. We automatically generate fix patterns from similar fixes and compare the generated fix patterns against a state-of-the-art taxonomy. Our automated approach splits fixes into smaller, method-level chunks and calculates their similarity. A threshold-based clustering algorithm groups similar chunks and finds matches with state-of-the-art fix patterns. In our evaluation, we present 33 clusters whose fix patterns were generated from the fixes of 835 Defects4J bugs. Of those 33 clusters, 22 matched a state-of-the-art taxonomy with good agreement. The remaining 11 clusters were thematically analysed and generated new fix patterns that expanded the taxonomy. Our new fix patterns should enable APR researchers and practitioners to expand their tools to fix a greater range of bugs in the future.

LEGaTO is a three-year EU H2020 project which started in December 2017. The LEGaTO project will leverage task-based programming models to provide a software ecosystem for Made-in-Europe heterogeneous hardware composed of CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs and dataflow engines. The aim is to attain one order of magnitude energy savings from the edge to the converged cloud/HPC.