Aiding Developer Understanding of Software Changes via Symbolic Execution-based Semantic Differencing
Pages 142 - 144
Abstract
According to a recent observational study, developers spend an average of 48% of their development time on debugging tasks. Approaches such as equivalence checking and fault localization support developers during debugging tasks by providing information that enables developers to more quickly identify and deal with unintended changes in program behavior. The accuracy and runtime performance of these approaches have seen continuous improvements throughout the years. However, the outputs of existing tools are often difficult to understand for developers due to a lack of context information and result explanations. Our goal is to improve upon this issue by developing a new equivalence checking approach that (i) is at least as accurate as existing approaches but (ii) provides more detailed descriptions of identified behavioral / semantic differences and (iii) presents these results in a way that is useful for developers, thus aiding developer understanding of equivalence checking results and corresponding software changes.
References
[1]
William C. Adams. 2015. Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chapter 19, 492--505.
[2]
Abdulaziz Alaboudi and Thomas D. LaToza. 2021. Edit - Run Behavior in Programming and Debugging. In Proceedings of the 2021 Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. IEEE, 1--10.
[3]
Abdulaziz Alaboudi and Thomas D. LaToza. 2021. An Exploratory Study of Debugging Episodes. arXiv:2105.02162 [cs.SE]
[4]
Sahar Badihi, Faridah Akinotcho, Yi Li, and Julia Rubin. 2020. ARDiff: Scaling Program Equivalence Checking via Iterative Abstraction and Refinement of Common Code. In Proceedings of the 28th Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 13--24.
[5]
Roberto Baldoni, Emilio Coppa, Daniele C. D'Elia, Camil Demetrescu, and Irene Finocchi. 2018. A Survey of Symbolic Execution Techniques. Comput. Surveys 51, 3 (2018), 50:1--50:39.
[6]
Moritz Beller, Niels Spruit, Diomidis Spinellis, and Andy Zaidman. 2018. On the Dichotomy of Debugging Behavior Among Programmers. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 572--583.
[7]
Marcel Böhme, Bruno C. D. S. Oliveira, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2013. Partition-based Regression Verification. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 302--311.
[8]
Jean-Rémy Falleri, Floréal Morandat, Xavier Blanc, Matias Martinez, and Martin Monperrus. 2014. Fine-Grained and Accurate Source Code Differencing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ACM, 313--324.
[9]
Veit Frick, Thomas Grassauer, Fabian Beck, and Martin Pinzger. 2018. Generating Accurate and Compact Edit Scripts Using Tree Differencing. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. IEEE, 264--274.
[10]
Harald C. Gall, Beat Fluri, and Martin Pinzger. 2009. Change Analysis with Evolizer and ChangeDistiller. IEEE Software 26, 1 (2009), 26--33.
[11]
Johann Glock, Josef Pichler, and Martin Pinzger. 2023. PASDA: A Partition-based Semantic Differencing Approach with Best Effort Classification of Undecided Cases. arXiv:2311.08071 [cs.SE]
[12]
Johann Glock, Josef Pichler, and Martin Pinzger. 2023. Replication Package for: "PASDA: A Partition-based Semantic Differencing Approach with Best Effort Classification of Undecided Cases".
[13]
Jane Hoffswell, Arvind Satyanarayan, and Jeffrey Heer. 2018. Augmenting Code with In Situ Visualizations to Aid Program Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.
[14]
Marie-Christine Jakobs. 2021. PEQcheck: Localized and Context-Aware Checking of Functional Equivalence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Software Engineering. IEEE, 130--140.
[15]
James C. King. 1976. Symbolic Execution and Program Testing. Commun. ACM 19, 7 (1976), 385--394.
[16]
Pavneet Singh Kochhar, Xin Xia, David Lo, and Shanping Li. 2016. Practitioners' Expectations on Automated Fault Localization. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, 165--176.
[17]
Lucas Layman, Madeline Diep, Meiyappan Nagappan, Janice Singer, Robert DeLine, and Gina Venolia. 2013. Debugging Revisited: Toward Understanding the Debugging Needs of Contemporary Software Developers. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE, 383--392.
[18]
Claire Le Goues, Michael Pradel, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2019. Automated Program Repair. Commun. ACM 62, 12 (2019), 56--65.
[19]
Sergey Mechtaev, Jooyong Yi, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2016. Angelix: Scalable Multiline Program Patch Synthesis via Symbolic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 691--701.
[20]
Martin Monperrus. 2018. Automatic Software Repair: A Bibliography. Comput. Surveys 51, 1 (2018), 17:1--17:24.
[21]
Yannic Noller, Ridwan Shariffdeen, Xiang Gao, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2022. Trust Enhancement Issues in Program Repair. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 2228--2240.
[22]
Chris Parnin and Alessandro Orso. 2011. Are Automated Debugging Techniques Actually Helping Programmers?. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, 199--209.
[23]
Suzette Person, Matthew B. Dwyer, Sebastian Elbaum, and Corina S. Pásáreanu. 2008. Differential Symbolic Execution. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 226--237.
[24]
Matúš Sulír, Michaela Bačíková, Sergej Chodarev, and Jaroslav Porubän. 2018. Visual Augmentation of Source Code Editors: A Systematic Mapping Study. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 49 (2018), 46--59.
[25]
M. W. van Someren, Y. F. Barnard, and J. A. C. Sandberg. 1994. The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Approach to Modelling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=7fef37d5-8ead-44c6-af62-0feeea18d445
[26]
Emily Winter, David Bowes, Steve Counsell, Tracy Hall, Saemundur O. Haraldsson, Vesna Nowack, and John R. Woodward. 2023. How do Developers Really Feel About Bug Fixing? Directions for Automatic Program Repair. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 4 (2023), 1823--1841.
[27]
W. Eric Wong, Ruizhi Gao, Yihao Li, Rui Abreu, and Franz Wotawa. 2016. A Survey on Software Fault Localization. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40, 8 (2016), 707--740.
[28]
Jifeng Xuan, Matias Martinez, Favio Demarco, Maxime Clement, Sebastian R. Lamelas Marcote, Thomas Durieux, Daniel Le Berre, and Martin Monperrus. 2017. Nopol: Automatic Repair of Conditional Statement Bugs in Java Programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 43, 1 (2017), 34--55.
Recommendations
Runtime exception detection in Java programs using symbolic execution
Most of the runtime failures of a software system can be revealed during test execution only, which has a very high cost. In Java programs, runtime failures are manifested as unhandled runtime exceptions.
In this paper we present an approach and tool ...
Theoretical aspects of compositional symbolic execution
FASE'11/ETAPS'11: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Fundamental approaches to software engineering: part of the joint European conferences on theory and practice of softwareGiven a program and an assertion in that program, determining if the assertion can fail is one of the key applications of program analysis. Symbolic execution is a well-known technique for finding such assertion violations that can enjoy the following ...
Equivalence Checking of Code Transformation by Numerical and Symbolic Approaches
Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and TechnologiesAbstractDue to the increasing diversity and complexity of high-performance systems, system-specific optimization is vital to extract the system performance. To ensure that optimization does not degrade code readability and maintainability, user-defined ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2024
531 pages
ISBN:9798400705021
DOI:10.1145/3639478
- Co-chairs:
- Ana Paiva,
- Rui Abreu,
- Program Co-chairs:
- Abhik Roychoudhury,
- Margaret Storey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 23 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
Conference
ICSE-Companion '24
Sponsor:
ICSE-Companion '24: 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings
April 14 - 20, 2024
Lisbon, Portugal
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 276 of 1,856 submissions, 15%
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 45Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)45
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16
Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in