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.

Abigail Almanza

dblp:297/2137 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021

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
Software maintenance and evolution · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › build systems
build reproducibility
0.512021
Fixing dependency errors for Python build reproducibility · ISSTA 2021
Software maintenance and evolution › software ecosystems
dependency management
0.112021
Fixing dependency errors for Python build reproducibility · ISSTA 2021

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

dependency version search · 0.5build log parsing · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Fixing dependency errors for Python build reproducibility
abstract
Software reproducibility is important for re-usability and the cumulative progress of research. An important manifestation of unreproducible software is the changed outcome of software builds over time. While enhancing code reuse, the use of open-source dependency packages hosted on centralized repositories such as PyPI can have adverse effects on build reproducibility. Frequent updates to these packages often cause their latest versions to have breaking changes for applications using them. Large Python applications risk their historical builds becoming unreproducible due to the widespread usage of Python dependencies, and the lack of uniform practices for dependency version specification. Manually fixing dependency errors requires expensive developer time and effort, while automated approaches face challenges of parsing unstructured build logs, finding transitive dependencies, and exploring an exponential search space of dependency versions. In this paper, we investigate how open-source Python projects specify dependency versions, and how their reproducibility is impacted by dependency packages. We propose a tool PyDFix to detect and fix unreproducibility in Python builds caused by dependency errors. PyDFix is evaluated on two bug datasets BugSwarm and BugsInPy, both of which are built from real-world open-source projects. PyDFix analyzes a total of 2,702 builds, identifying 1,921 (71.1%) of them to be unreproducible due to dependency errors. From these, PyDFix provides a complete fix for 859 (44.7%) builds, and partial fixes for an additional 632 (32.9%) builds.
Suchita Mukherjee, Abigail Almanza, Cindy Rubio-González
ISSTA2