Benchmarks of bugs are essential to empirically evaluate automatic program repair tools. In this paper, we present Bears, a project for collecting and storing bugs into an extensible bug benchmark for automatic repair studies in Java. The collection of bugs relies on commit building state from Continuous Integration (CI) to find potential pairs of buggy and patched program versions from open-source projects hosted on GitHub. Each pair of program versions passes through a pipeline where an attempt of reproducing a bug and its patch is performed. The core step of the reproduction pipeline is the execution of the test suite of the program on both program versions. If a test failure is found in the buggy program version candidate and no test failure is found in its patched program version candidate, a bug and its patch were successfully reproduced. The uniqueness of Bears is the usage of CI (builds) to identify buggy and patched program version candidates, which has been widely adopted in the last years in open-source projects. This approach allows us to collect bugs from a diversity of projects beyond mature projects that use bug tracking systems. Moreover, Bears was designed to be publicly available and to be easily extensible by the research community through automatic creation of branches with bugs in a given GitHub repository, which can be used for pull requests in the Bears repository. We present in this paper the approach employed by Bears, and we deliver the version 1.0 of Bears, which contains 251 reproducible bugs collected from 72 projects that use the Travis CI and Maven build environment.
More recently other benchmarks were proposed for automatic program repair. Codeflaws @cite_5 contains 3,902 bugs extracted from programming contests available on Codeforces. Codeflaws is also for the C language, and the programs range from one to 322 lines of code. QuixBugs @cite_15 is a multi-lingual benchmark, which contains single line bugs from 40 programs translated to both Java and Python languages.
@cite_5 @cite_15
2762550985 2883590803 2149321161 2145124323
Recent years have seen an explosion of work in automated program repair. While previous work has focused exclusively on tools for single languages, recent work in multi-language transformation has opened the door for multi-language program repair tools. Evaluating the performance of such a tool requires having a benchmark set of similar buggy programs in different languages. We present QuixBugs, consisting of 40 programs translated to both Python and Java, each with a bug on a single line. The QuixBugs benchmark suite is based on problems from the Quixey Challenge, where programmers were given a short buggy program and 1 minute to fix the bug. The characterization of bug datasets is essential to support the evaluation of automatic program repair tools. In a previous work, we manually studied almost 400 human-written patches (bug fixes) from the Defects4J dataset and annotated them with properties, such as repair patterns. However, manually finding these patterns in different datasets is tedious and time-consuming. To address this activity, we designed and implemented PPD, a detector of repair patterns in patches, which performs source code change analysis at abstract-syntax tree level. In this paper, we report on PPD and its evaluation on Defects4J, where we compare the results from the automated detection with the results from the previous manual analysis. We found that PPD has overall precision of 91 and overall recall of 92 , and we conclude that PPD has the potential to detect as many repair patterns as human manual analysis. Twenty-seven automatically extractable bug fix patterns are defined using the syntax components and context of the source code involved in bug fix changes. Bug fix patterns are extracted from the configuration management repositories of seven open source projects, all written in Java (Eclipse, Columba, JEdit, Scarab, ArgoUML, Lucene, and MegaMek). Defined bug fix patterns cover 45.7 to 63.3 of the total bug fix hunk pairs in these projects. The frequency of occurrence of each bug fix pattern is computed across all projects. The most common individual patterns are MC-DAP (method call with different actual parameter values) at 14.9---25.5 , IF-CC (change in if conditional) at 5.6---18.6 , and AS-CE (change of assignment expression) at 6.0---14.2 . A correlation analysis on the extracted pattern instances on the seven projects shows that six have very similar bug fix pattern frequencies. Analysis of if conditional bug fix sub-patterns shows a trend towards increasing conditional complexity in if conditional fixes. Analysis of five developers in the Eclipse projects shows overall consistency with project-level bug fix pattern frequencies, as well as distinct variations among developers in their rates of producing various bug patterns. Overall, data in the paper suggest that developers have difficulty with specific code situations at surprisingly consistent rates. There appear to be broad mechanisms causing the injection of bugs that are largely independent of the type of software being produced. There are more bugs in real-world programs than human programmers can realistically address. This paper evaluates two research questions: What fraction of bugs can be repaired automatically?'' and How much does it cost to repair a bug automatically?'' In previous work, we presented GenProg, which uses genetic programming to repair defects in off-the-shelf C programs. To answer these questions, we: (1) propose novel algorithmic improvements to GenProg that allow it to scale to large programs and find repairs 68 more often, (2) exploit GenProg's inherent parallelism using cloud computing resources to provide grounded, human-competitive cost measurements, and (3) generate a large, indicative benchmark set to use for systematic evaluations. We evaluate GenProg on 105 defects from 8 open-source programs totaling 5.1 million lines of code and involving 10,193 test cases. GenProg automatically repairs 55 of those 105 defects. To our knowledge, this evaluation is the largest available of its kind, and is often two orders of magnitude larger than previous work in terms of code or test suite size or defect count. Public cloud computing prices allow our 105 runs to be reproduced for @math 7.32, on average.