Bugs are essential in software engineering; many research studies in the past decades have been proposed to detect, localize, and repair bugs in software systems. Effectiveness evaluation of such techniques requires complex bugs, i.e., those that are hard to detect through testing and hard to repair through debugging. From the classic software engineering point of view, a hard-to-repair bug differs from the correct code in multiple locations, making it hard to localize and repair. Hard-to-detect bugs, on the other hand, manifest themselves under specific test inputs and reachability conditions. These two objectives, i.e., generating hard-to-detect and hard-to-repair bugs, are mostly aligned; a bug generation technique can change multiple statements to be covered only under a specific set of inputs. However, these two objectives conflict in the learning-based techniques: A bug should have a similar code representation to the correct code in the training data to challenge a bug prediction model to distinguish them. The hard-to-repair bug definition remains the same but with a caveat: the more a bug differs from the original code (at multiple locations), the more distant their representations are and easier to detect. This demands new techniques to generate bugs to complement existing bug datasets to challenge learning-based bug prediction and repair techniques.(p)(/p)We propose BugFarm to transform arbitrary code into multiple hard-to-detect and hard-to-repair bugs. BugFarm mutates code in multiple locations (hard-to-repair) but leverages attention analysis to only change the least attended locations by the underlying model (hard-to-detect). Our comprehensive evaluation of 435k+ bugs from over 1.9M mutants generated by BugFarm and two alternative approaches demonstrates our superiority in generating bugs that are hard to detect by learning-based bug prediction approaches (up to 40.53% higher False Negative Rate and 10.76%, 5.2%, 28.93%, and 20.53% lower Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1 score) and hard to repair by state-of-the-art learning-based program repair technique (28% repair success rate compared to 36% and 49% of LEAM and μBERT bugs). BugFarm is efficient, i.e., it takes nine seconds to mutate a code with no training overhead.

Code translation aims to convert source code from one programming language (PL) to another. Given the promising abilities of large language models (LLMs) in code synthesis, researchers are exploring their potential to automate code translation. The prerequisite for advancing the state of LLM-based code translation is to understand their promises and limitations over existing techniques. To that end, we present a large-scale empirical study to investigate the ability of general LLMs and code LLMs for code translation across pairs of different languages, including C, C++, Go, Java, and Python. Our study, which involves the translation of 1,700 code samples from three benchmarks and two real-world projects, reveals that LLMs are yet to be reliably used to automate code translation---with correct translations ranging from 2.1% to 47.3% for the studied LLMs. Further manual investigation of unsuccessful translations identifies 15 categories of translation bugs. We also compare LLM-based code translation with traditional non-LLM-based approaches. Our analysis shows that these two classes of techniques have their own strengths and weaknesses. Finally, insights from our study suggest that providing more context to LLMs during translation can help them produce better results. To that end, we propose a prompt-crafting approach based on the symptoms of erroneous translations; this improves the performance of LLM-based code translation by 5.5% on average. Our study is the first of its kind, in terms of scale and breadth, that provides insights into the current limitations of LLMs in code translation and opportunities for improving them. Our dataset---consisting of 1,700 code samples in five PLs with 10K+ tests, 43K+ translated code, 1,748 manually labeled bugs, and 1,365 bug-fix pairs---can help drive research in this area.

Automation of test oracles is one of the most challenging facets of software testing, but remains comparatively less addressed compared to automated test input generation. Test oracles rely on a ground-truth that can distinguish between the correct and buggy behavior to determine whether a test fails (detects a bug) or passes. What makes the oracle problem challenging and undecidable is the assumption that the ground-truth should know the exact expected, correct, or buggy behavior. However, we argue that one can still build an accurate oracle without knowing the exact correct or buggy behavior, but how these two might differ. This paper presents , a learning-based approach that in the absence of test assertions or other types of oracle, can determine whether a unit test passes or fails on a given method under test (MUT). To build the ground-truth, jointly embeds unit tests and the implementation of MUTs into a unified vector space, in such a way that the neural representation of tests are similar to that of MUTs they pass on them, but dissimilar to MUTs they fail on them. The classifier built on top of this vector representation serves as the oracle to generate “fail” labels, when test inputs detect a bug in MUT or “pass” labels, otherwise. Our extensive experiments on applying to more than 5K unit tests from a diverse set of open-source Java projects show that the produced oracle is (1) effective in predicting the fail or pass labels, achieving an overall accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 measure of 93%, 86%, 94%, and 90%, (2) generalizable, predicting the labels for the unit test of projects that were not in training or validation set with negligible performance drop, and (3) efficient, detecting the existence of bugs in only 6.5 milliseconds on average. Moreover, by interpreting the neural model and looking at it beyond a closed-box solution, we confirm that the oracle is valid, i.e., it predicts the labels through learning relevant features.