In software engineering, impact analysis consists in predicting the software elements (e.g. modules, classes, methods) potentially impacted by a change in the source code. Impact analysis is required to optimize the testing effort. In this paper, we propose a framework to predict error propagation. Based on 10 open-source Java projects and 5 classical mutation operators, we create 17000 mutants and study how the error they introduce propagates. This framework enables us to analyze impact prediction based on four types of call graph. Our results show that the sophistication indeed increases completeness of impact prediction. However, and surprisingly to us, the most basic call graph gives the highest trade-off between precision and recall for impact prediction.
Antoniol al @cite_30 also address impact analysis. However, they consider a slightly different problem setting, because they take as input a bug report or a modification request and not a single source code element as we do. Their approach is less accurate as it takes into consideration documentation ( bug reports) for change impact analysis. Our approach is more realistic as it is source-code centric: we only deal with existing elements obtained from source code. The same argument applies for the recent work by Gethers and colleagues @cite_7 .
@cite_30 @cite_7
2104074028 2121898351 1548254758 2324328435
The paper presents an adaptive approach to perform impact analysis from a given change request to source code. Given a textual change request (e.g., a bug report), a single snapshot (release) of source code, indexed using Latent Semantic Indexing, is used to estimate the impact set. Should additional contextual information be available, the approach configures the best-fit combination to produce an improved impact set. Contextual information includes the execution trace and an initial source code entity verified for change. Combinations of information retrieval, dynamic analysis, and data mining of past source code commits are considered. The research hypothesis is that these combinations help counter the precision or recall deficit of individual techniques and improve the overall accuracy. The tandem operation of the three techniques sets it apart from other related solutions. Automation along with the effective utilization of two key sources of developer knowledge, which are often overlooked in impact analysis at the change request level, is achieved. To validate our approach, we conducted an empirical evaluation on four open source software systems. A benchmark consisting of a number of maintenance issues, such as feature requests and bug fixes, and their associated source code changes was established by manual examination of these systems and their change history. Our results indicate that there are combinations formed from the augmented developer contextual information that show statistically significant improvement over stand-alone approaches. Tools and analyses that find bugs in software are becoming increasingly prevalent. However, even after the potential false alarms raised by such tools are dealt with, many real reported errors may go unfixed. In such cases the programmers have judged the benefit of fixing the bug to be less than the time cost of understanding and fixing it.The true utility of a bug-finding tool lies not in the number of bugs it finds but in the number of bugs it causes to be fixed.Analyses that find safety-policy violations typically give error reports as annotated backtraces or counterexamples. We propose that bug reports additionally contain a specially-constructed patch describing an example way in which the program could be modified to avoid the reported policy violation. Programmers viewing the analysis output can use such patches as guides, starting points, or as an additional way of understanding what went wrong.We present an algorithm for automatically constructing such patches given model-checking and policy information typically already produced by most such analyses. We are not aware of any previous automatic techniques for generating patches in response to safety policy violations. Our patches can suggest additional code not present in the original program, and can thus help to explain bugs related to missing program elements. In addition, our patches do not introduce any new violations of the given safety policy.To evaluate our method we performed a software engineering experiment, applying our algorithm to over 70 bug reports produced by two off-the-shelf bug-finding tools running on large Java programs. Bug reports also accompanied by patches were three times as likely to be addressed as standard bug reports.This work represents an early step toward developing new ways to report bugs and to make it easier for programmers to fix them. Even a minor increase in our ability to fix bugs would be a great increase for the quality of software. From the Publisher: As software systems become increasingly large and complex, the need increases to predict and control the effects of software changes. Software Change Impact Analysis captures the latest information on the science and art of determining what software parts affect each other. It provides a battery of ideas for doing impact analysis better, presents a framework for the field, and focuses attention on important results. You will gain a healthy respect for the strengths and limitations of impact analysis technology and a solid background that will prove valuable for years to come. The book identifies key impact analysis definitions and themes and illustrates the important themes to give you a solid understanding for tackling impact analysis problems. It includes reports on software source code dependency analysis and software traceability analysis and shows how results from both areas can more effectively support impact analysis in software engineering repositories. It also describes why impact representation and determination techniques are at the heart of both source dependency analysis and traceability analysis. Context. In many application domains, critical systems must comply with safety standards. This involves gathering safety evidence in the form of artefacts such as safety analyses, system specifications, and testing results. These artefacts can evolve during a system's lifecycle, creating a need for change impact analysis to guarantee that system safety and compliance are not jeopardised. Objective. We aim to provide new insights into how safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed in practice. The knowledge about this activity is limited despite the extensive research that has been conducted on change impact analysis and on safety evidence management. Method. We conducted an industrial survey on the circumstances under which safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed, the tool support used, and the challenges faced. Results. We obtained 97 valid responses representing 16 application domains, 28 countries, and 47 safety standards. The respondents had most often performed safety evidence change impact analysis during system development, from system specifications, and fully manually. No commercial change impact analysis tool was reported as used for all artefact types and insufficient tool support was the most frequent challenge. Conclusion. The results suggest that the different artefact types used as safety evidence co-evolve. In addition, the evolution of safety cases should probably be better managed, the level of automation in safety evidence change impact analysis is low, and the state of the practice can benefit from over 20 improvement areas.