CORE: Automating Review Recommendation for Code Changes
December 20, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
JingKai Siow, Cuiyun Gao, Lingling Fan, Sen Chen, Yang Liu
arXiv ID
1912.09652
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.LG
Citations
71
Venue
IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Code review is a common process that is used by developers, in which a reviewer provides useful comments or points out defects in the submitted source code changes via pull request. Code review has been widely used for both industry and open-source projects due to its capacity in early defect identification, project maintenance, and code improvement. With rapid updates on project developments, code review becomes a non-trivial and labor-intensive task for reviewers. Thus, an automated code review engine can be beneficial and useful for project development in practice. Although there exist prior studies on automating the code review process by adopting static analysis tools or deep learning techniques, they often require external sources such as partial or full source code for accurate review suggestion. In this paper, we aim at automating the code review process only based on code changes and the corresponding reviews but with better performance. The hinge of accurate code review suggestion is to learn good representations for both code changes and reviews. To achieve this with limited source, we design a multi-level embedding (i.e., word embedding and character embedding) approach to represent the semantics provided by code changes and reviews. The embeddings are then well trained through a proposed attentional deep learning model, as a whole named CORE. We evaluate the effectiveness of CORE on code changes and reviews collected from 19 popular Java projects hosted on Github. Experimental results show that our model CORE can achieve significantly better performance than the state-of-the-art model (DeepMem), with an increase of 131.03% in terms of Recall@10 and 150.69% in terms of Mean Reciprocal Rank. Qualitative general word analysis among project developers also demonstrates the performance of CORE in automating code review.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted