Defect prediction has been a popular research topic where machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have found numerous applications. However, these ML/DL-based defect prediction models are often limited by the quality and size of their datasets. In this paper, we present Defectors, a large dataset for just-in-time and line-level defect prediction. Defectors consists of ≈ 213K source code files (≈ 93K defective and ≈ 120K defect- free) that span across 24 popular Python projects. These projects come from 18 different domains, including machine learning, automation, and internet-of-things. Such a scale and diversity make Defectors a suitable dataset for training ML/DL models, especially transformer models that require large and diverse datasets. We also foresee several application areas of our dataset including defect prediction and defect explanation.

In Stack Overflow (SO), the quality of posts (i.e., questions and answers) is subjectively evaluated by users through a voting mechanism. The net votes (upvotes − downvotes) obtained by a post are often considered an approximation of its quality. However, about half of the questions that received working solutions got more downvotes than upvotes. Furthermore, about 18% of the accepted answers (i.e., verified solutions) also do not score the maximum votes. All these counter-intuitive findings cast doubts on the reliability of the evaluation mechanism employed at SO. Moreover, many users raise concerns against the evaluation, especially downvotes to their posts. Therefore, rigorous verification of the subjective evaluation is highly warranted to ensure a non-biased and reliable quality assessment mechanism. In this paper, we compare the subjective assessment of questions with their objective assessment using 2.5 million questions and ten text analysis metrics. According to our investigation, four objective metrics agree with the subjective evaluation, two do not agree, one either agrees or disagrees, and the remaining three neither agree nor disagree with the subjective evaluation. We then develop machine learning models to classify the promoted and discouraged questions. Our models outperform the state-of-the-art models with a maximum of about 76%–87% accuracy.

Deep learning practitioners are often interested in improving their model accuracy rather than the interpretability of their models. As a result, deep learning applications are inherently complex in their structures. They also need to continuously evolve in terms of code changes and model updates. Given these confounding factors, there is a great chance of violating the recommended programming practices by the developers in their deep learning applications. In particular, the code quality might be negatively affected due to their drive for the higher model performance. Unfortunately, the code quality of deep learning applications has rarely been studied to date. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to investigate the distribution of code smells in deep learning applications. To this end, we perform a comparative analysis between deep learning and traditional open-source applications collected from GitHub. We have several major findings. First, long lambda expression, long ternary conditional expression, and complex container comprehension smells are frequently found in deep learning projects. That is, deep learning code involves more complex or longer expressions than the traditional code does. Second, the number of code smells increases across the releases of deep learning applications. Third, we found that there is a co-existence between code smells and software bugs in the studied deep learning code, which confirms our conjecture on the degraded code quality of deep learning applications.

Code smells indicate software design problems that harm software quality. Data-intensive systems that frequently access databases often suffer from SQL code smells besides the traditional smells. While there have been extensive studies on traditional code smells, recently, there has been a growing interest in SQL code smells. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to investigate the prevalence and evolution of SQL code smells in open-source, data-intensive systems. We collected 150 projects and examined both traditional and SQL code smells in these projects. Our investigation delivers several important findings. First, SQL code smells are indeed prevalent in data-intensive software systems. Second, SQL code smells have a weak co-occurrence with traditional code smells. Third, SQL code smells have a weaker association with bugs than that of traditional code smells. Fourth, SQL code smells are more likely to be introduced at the beginning of the project lifetime and likely to be left in the code without a fix, compared to traditional code smells. Overall, our results show that SQL code smells are indeed prevalent and persistent in the studied data-intensive software systems. Developers should be aware of these smells and consider detecting and refactoring SQL code smells and traditional code smells separately, using dedicated tools.

Software developers often look for solutions to their code level problems at Stack Overflow. Hence, they frequently submit their questions with sample code segments and issue descriptions. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to reproduce their reported issues from such code segments. This phenomenon might prevent their questions from getting prompt and appropriate solutions. In this paper, we report an exploratory study on the reproducibility of the issues discussed in 400 questions of Stack Overflow. In particular, we parse, compile, execute and even carefully examine the code segments from these questions, spent a total of 200 man hours, and then attempt to reproduce their programming issues. The outcomes of our study are two-fold. First, we find that 68% of the code segments require minor and major modifications in order to reproduce the issues reported by the developers. On the contrary, 22% code segments completely fail to reproduce the issues. We also carefully investigate why these issues could not be reproduced and then provide evidence-based guidelines for writing effective code examples for Stack Overflow questions. Second, we investigate the correlation between issue reproducibility status (of questions) and corresponding answer meta-data such as the presence of an accepted answer. According to our analysis, a question with reproducible issues has at least three times higher chance of receiving an accepted answer than the question with irreproducible issues.

Peer code review and continuous integration often interleave with each other in the modern software quality management. Although several studies investigate how non-technical factors (e.g., reviewer workload), developer participation and even patch size affect the code review process, the impact of continuous integration on code reviews is not yet properly understood. In this paper, we report an exploratory study using 578K automated build entries where we investigate the impact of automated builds on the code reviews. Our investigation suggests that successfully passed builds are more likely to encourage new code review participation in a pull request. Frequently built projects are found to be maintaining a steady level of reviewing activities over the years, which was quite missing from the rarely built projects. Experiments with 26,516 automated build entries reported that our proposed model can identify 64% of the builds that triggered new code reviews later.

Although peer code review is widely adopted in both commercial and open source development, existing studies suggest that such code reviews often contain a significant amount of non-useful review comments. Unfortunately, to date, no tools or techniques exist that can provide automatic support in improving those non-useful comments. In this paper, we first report a comparative study between useful and non-useful review comments where we contrast between them using their textual characteristics, and reviewers' experience. Then, based on the findings from the study, we develop RevHelper, a prediction model that can help the developers improve their code review comments through automatic prediction of their usefulnessduring review submission. Comparative study using 1,116 review comments suggested that useful comments share more vocabulary with the changed code, contain salient items like relevant code elements, and their reviewers are generally more experienced. Experiments using 1,482 review comments report that our model can predict comment usefulness with 66% prediction accuracy which is promising. Comparison with three variants of a baseline model using a case study validates our empirical findings and demonstrates the potential of our model.

For a significant number of questions at Stack Overflow, none of the posted answers were accepted as solutions. Acceptance of an answer indicates that the answer actually solves the discussed problem in the question, and the question is answered sufficiently. In this paper, we investigate 3,956 such unresolved questions using an exploratory study where we analyze four important aspects of those questions, their answers and the corresponding users that partially explain the observed scenario. We then propose a prediction model by employing five metrics related to user behaviour, topics and popularity of question, which predicts if the best answer for a question at Stack Overflow might remain unaccepted or not. Experiments using 8,057 questions show that the model can predict unresolved questions with 78.70% precision and 76.10% recall.

Given the increasing number of unsuccessful pull requests in GitHub projects, insights into the success and failure of these requests are essential for the developers. In this paper, we provide a comparative study between successful and unsuccessful pull requests made to 78 GitHub base projects by 20,142 developers from 103,192 forked projects. In the study, we analyze pull request discussion texts, project specific information (e.g., domain, maturity), and developer specific information (e.g., experience) in order to report useful insights, and use them to contrast between successful and unsuccessful pull requests. We believe our study will help developers overcome the issues with pull requests in GitHub, and project administrators with informed decision making.