Python is known to be used by beginners to professional programmers. Python provides functionality to its community of users through PyPI libraries, which allows developers to reuse functionalities to an application. However, it is unknown the extent to which these PyPI libraries require proficient code in their implementation. We conjecture that PyPI contributors may decide to implement more advanced Pythonic code, or stick with more basic Python code. Are complex codes only committed by few contributors, or only to specific files? The new idea in this paper is to confirm who and where complex code is implemented. Hence, we present a visualization to show the relationship between proficient code, contributors, and files. Analyzing four PyPI projects, we are able to explore which files contain more elegant code, and which contributors committed to these files. Our results show that most files contain more basic competency files, and that not every contributor contributes competent code. We show how our visualization is able to summarize such information, and opens up different possibilities for understanding how to make elegant contributions.

Abstract Technical Debt occurs when development teams favour short-term operability over long-term stability. Since this places software maintainability at risk, technical debt requires early attention to avoid paying for accumulated interest. Most of the existing work focuses on detecting technical debt using code comments, known as Self-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD). However, there are many cases where technical debt instances are not explicitly acknowledged but deeply hidden in the code. In this paper, we propose a framework that caters for the absence of SATD comments in code. Our Self-Admitted Technical Debt Identification and Description (SATDID) framework determines if technical debt should be self-admitted for an input code fragment. If that is the case, SATDID will automatically generate the appropriate descriptive SATD comment that can be attached with the code. While our approach is applicable in principle to any type of code fragments, we focus in this study on technical debt hidden in conditional statements, one of the most TD-carrying parts of code. We explore and evaluate different implementations of SATDID. The evaluation results demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of our framework over multiple benchmarks. Comparing with the results from the benchmarks, our approach provides at least 21.35, 59.36, 31.78, and 583.33% improvements in terms of Precision, Recall, F-1, and Bleu-4 scores, respectively. In addition, we conduct a human evaluation to the SATD comments generated by SATDID. In 1-5 and 0–5 scales for Acceptability and Understandability, the total means achieved by our approach are 3.128 and 3.172, respectively.

Abstract Although many software development projects have moved their developer discussion forums to generic platforms such as Stack Overflow, Eclipse has been steadfast in hosting their self-supported community forums. While recent studies show forums share similarities to generic communication channels, it is unknown how project-specific forums are utilized. In this paper, we analyze 832,058 forum threads and their linkages to four systems with 2,170 connected contributors to understand the participation, content and sentiment. Results show that Seniors are the most active participants to respond bug and non-bug-related threads in the forums (i.e., 66.1% and 45.5%), and sentiment among developers are inconsistent while knowledge sharing within Eclipse. We recommend the users to identify appropriate topics and ask in a positive procedural way when joining forums. For developers, preparing project-specific forums could be an option to bridge the communication between members. Irrespective of the popularity of Stack Overflow, we argue the benefits of using project-specific forum initiatives, such as GitHub Discussions, are needed to cultivate a community and its ecosystem.

Abstract Automatic identification of the differences between two versions of a file is a common and basic task in several applications of mining code repositories. Git, a version control system, has a diff utility and users can select algorithms of diff from the default algorithm Myers to the advanced Histogram algorithm. From our systematic mapping, we identified three popular applications of diff in recent studies. On the impact on code churn metrics in 14 Java projects, we obtained different values in 1.7% to 8.2% commits based on the different diff algorithms. Regarding bug-introducing change identification, we found 6.0% and 13.3% in the identified bug-fix commits had different results of bug-introducing changes from 10 Java projects. For patch application, we found that the Histogram is more suitable than Myers for providing the changes of code, from our manual analysis. Thus, we strongly recommend using the Histogram algorithm when mining Git repositories to consider differences in source code.