Method-level comments are critical for improving code comprehension and supporting software maintenance. With advancements in large language models (LLMs), automated comment generation has become a major research focus. However, existing approaches often overlook method dependencies, where one method relies on or calls others, affecting comment quality and code understandability. This study investigates the prevalence and impact of dependent methods in software projects and introduces a dependency-aware approach for method-level comment generation. Analyzing a dataset of 10 popular Java GitHub projects, we found that dependent methods account for 69.25% of all methods and exhibit higher engagement and change proneness compared to independent methods. Across 448K dependent and 199K independent methods, we observed that state-of-the-art fine-tuned models (e.g., CodeT5+, CodeBERT) struggle to generate comprehensive comments for dependent methods, a trend also reflected in LLM-based approaches like ASAP. To address this, we propose HelpCOM, a novel dependency-aware technique that incorporates helper method information to improve comment clarity, comprehensiveness, and relevance. Experiments show that HelpCOM outperforms baseline methods by 5.6% to 50.4% across syntactic (e.g., BLEU), semantic (e.g., SentenceBERT), and LLM-based evaluation metrics. A survey of 156 software practitioners further confirms that HelpCOM significantly improves the comprehensibility of code involving dependent methods, highlighting its potential to enhance documentation, maintainability, and developer productivity in large-scale systems.

Code review is a widely adopted quality assurance practice in software engineering, where expert reviewers assess developers’ code changes before merging. While prior studies have explored review comment quality and usefulness, they often overlook the clarity and understandability of Code Change Request (CCR) comments. Unclear CCR comments can pose significant challenges for developers to address. Therefore, this study investigates the prevalence and impact of confusing or unclear CCR comments and proposes two approaches to enhance CCR communication during code review. Using a dataset of 182 open-source GitHub projects with over 55 K pull requests and 466 K CCR comments, we analyzed how often unclear comments occur and their effects on the review process. Our classifier, built from manually annotated developers’ replies in response to CCR comments, revealed that $24 \%$ of comments led to author confusion. Statistical analysis shows that unclear CCR comments significantly increase resolution time and discussion length, and that pull requests with clear CCR comments are more likely to be addressed and merged. A manual analysis of 400 confusing CCR comments identified six key characteristics, with lack of clarity and unclear rationale being the most common. Our first approach, the confusion classifier, flags authors’ confusion to enable reviewers to clarify ambiguities promptly (recall of 0.96), while the second classifier enables reviewers to evaluate the clarity and understandability of their CCR comments (recall of 0.93). This pioneering study further provides recommendations for enhancing CCR comments and offering a foundation for future research to streamline the review process.

Modern Code Review (MCR) is an integral part of a software development strategy that accelerates product quality by identifying defects, code smells, and other harmful practices. However, assigning appropriate reviewers to evaluate changed code during the review process remains challenging. While automated tools for reviewer assignments have limited impact in practice, the process often relies on manual investigation of project histories to retrieve knowledge of team members and their activities. Therefore, in this study, we present an approach to automatically assemble developers’ information and visualize it meaningfully, which helps to choose appropriate reviewers. First, we propose three metrics that measure developers’ collaboration, reviewers’ expertise, and reviewers’ workload and visualize them through networks. Second, we perform a case study of three popular open-source projects, where we compute and visualize each developers’ information according to the proposed metrics. Finally, we conducted two online surveys to assess the developers’ perceptions of the proposed visual benefits. The results show that the proposed method can assist in identifying relevant reviewers and be immensely helpful to new developers. Additionally, survey respondents expressed reliance on the efficacy of the visual aids in workload balancing and reducing review time.