Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Severin Heiniger

dblp:118/4057 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program analysis · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › static analysis
bug detection
0.112012
Static detection of brittle parameter typing · ISSTA 2012
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112012
Static detection of brittle parameter typing · ISSTA 2012
Program analysis
type analysis
0.112012
Static detection of brittle parameter typing · ISSTA 2012

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

type inference · 0.1static analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Static detection of brittle parameter typing
abstract
To avoid receiving incorrect arguments, a method specifies the expected type of each formal parameter. However, some parameter types are too general and have subtypes that the method does not expect as actual argument types. For example, this may happen if there is no common supertype that precisely describes all expected types. As a result of such brittle parameter typing, a caller may accidentally pass arguments unexpected by the callee without any warnings from the type system. This paper presents a fully automatic, static analysis to find brittle parameter typing and unexpected arguments given to brittle parameters. First, the analysis infers from callers of a method the types that arguments commonly have. Then, the analysis reports potentially unexpected arguments that stand out by having an unusual type. We apply the approach to 21 real-world Java programs that use the Swing API, an API providing various methods with brittle parameters. The analysis reveals 15 previously unknown bugs and code smells where programmers pass arguments that are compatible with the declared parameter type but nevertheless unexpected by the callee. The warnings reported by the analysis have 47% precision and 83% recall.
Michael Pradel, Severin Heiniger, Thomas R. Gross
ISSTA2