Has My Release Disobeyed Semantic Versioning? Static Detection Based on Semantic Differencing
September 01, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Lyuye Zhang, Chengwei Liu, Zhengzi Xu, Sen Chen, Lingling Fan, Bihuan Chen, Yang Liu
arXiv ID
2209.00393
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
41
Venue
International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
To enhance the compatibility in the version control of Java Third-party Libraries (TPLs), Maven adopts Semantic Versioning (SemVer) to standardize the underlying meaning of versions, but users could still confront abnormal execution and crash after upgrades even if compilation and linkage succeed. It is caused by semantic breaking (SemB) issues, such that APIs directly used by users have identical signatures but inconsistent semantics across upgrades. To strengthen compliance with SemVer rules, developers and users should be alerted of such issues. Unfortunately, it is challenging to detect them statically, because semantic changes in the internal methods of APIs are difficult to capture. Dynamic testing can confirmingly uncover some, but it is limited by inadequate coverage. To detect SemB issues over compatible upgrades (Patch and Minor) by SemVer rules, we conduct an empirical study on 180 SemB issues to understand the root causes, inspired by which, we propose Sembid (Semantic Breaking Issue Detector) to statically detect such issues of TPLs for developers and users. Since APIs are directly used by users, Sembid detects and reports SemB issues based on APIs. For a pair of APIs, Sembid walks through the call chains originating from the API to locate breaking changes by measuring semantic diff. Then, Sembid checks if the breaking changes can affect API's output along call chains. The evaluation showed Sembid achieved 90.26% recall and 81.29% precision and outperformed other API checkers on SemB API detection. We also revealed Sembid detected over 3 times more SemB APIs with better coverage than unit tests, the commonly used solution. Furthermore, we carried out an empirical study on 1,629,589 APIs from 546 version pairs of top Java libraries and found there were 2-4 times more SemB APIs than those with signature-based issues.
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