Predicting the Objective and Priority of Issue Reports in Software Repositories

December 20, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Empirical Software Engineering

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Maliheh Izadi, Kiana Akbari, Abbas Heydarnoori arXiv ID 2012.10951 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 67 Venue Empirical Software Engineering Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Developers collaboratively discuss, implement, use, and share software entities hosted on software repositories. Proper documentation plays an important role in successful software management and maintenance. Users exploit Issue Tracking Systems, a facility of software repositories, to keep track of issue reports, to manage the workload and processes, and finally, to document the highlight of their team's effort. An issue report is a rich source of collaboratively curated software knowledge, and can contain a reported problem, a request for new features, or merely a question about the software product. As the number of these issues increases, it becomes harder to manage them manually. GitHub provides labels for tagging issues, as a means of issue management. However, about half of the issues in GitHub's top 1000 repositories do not have any labels. We aim at automating the process of managing issue reports for software teams. We propose a two-stage approach to predict both the objective behind opening an issue and its priority level using feature engineering methods and state-of-the-art text classifiers. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to fine-tune a Transformer for issue classification. We train and evaluate our models in both project-based and cross-project settings. The latter approach provides a generic prediction model applicable for any unseen software project or projects with little historical data. Our proposed approach can successfully predict the objective and priority level of issue reports with 82% and 75% accuracy, respectively. Moreover, we conducted human labeling and evaluation on unlabeled issues from six unseen GitHub projects to assess the performance of the cross-project model on new data. The model achieves 90% accuracy. We obtain 85% average Percent Agreement and 71% Randolph's free-marginal Kappa translating to substantial agreement among labelers.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted