Reproducibility of Issues Reported in Stack Overflow Questions: Challenges, Impact & Estimation
July 13, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Journal of Systems and Software
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Saikat Mondal, Banani Roy
arXiv ID
2407.10023
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
2
Venue
Journal of Systems and Software
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Software developers often submit questions to technical Q&A sites like Stack Overflow (SO) to resolve code-level problems. In practice, they include example code snippets with questions to explain the programming issues. Existing research suggests that users attempt to reproduce the reported issues using given code snippets when answering questions. Unfortunately, such code snippets could not always reproduce the issues due to several unmet challenges that prevent questions from receiving appropriate and prompt solutions. One previous study investigated reproducibility challenges and produced a catalog. However, how the practitioners perceive this challenge catalog is unknown. Practitioners' perspectives are inevitable in validating these challenges and estimating their severity. This study first surveyed 53 practitioners to understand their perspectives on reproducibility challenges. We attempt to (a) see whether they agree with these challenges, (b) determine the impact of each challenge on answering questions, and (c) identify the need for tools to promote reproducibility. Survey results show that - (a) about 90% of the participants agree with the challenges, (b) "missing an important part of code" most severely hurt reproducibility, and (c) participants strongly recommend introducing automated tool support to promote reproducibility. Second, we extract \emph{nine} code-based features (e.g., LOC, compilability) and build five Machine Learning (ML) models to predict issue reproducibility. Early detection might help users improve code snippets and their reproducibility. Our models achieve 84.5% precision, 83.0% recall, 82.8% F1-score, and 82.8% overall accuracy, which are highly promising. Third, we systematically interpret the ML model and explain how code snippets with reproducible issues differ from those with irreproducible 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