An empirical study of the effect of file editing patterns on software quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Developers might follow different file editing patterns when handling change requests. Existing research has warned the community about the potential negative impacts of some file editing patterns on software quality. However, very few studies have provided quantitative evidence to support these claims. In this paper, we propose four metrics to identify four file editing patterns: concurrent editing pattern, parallel editing pattern, extended editing pattern, and interrupted editing pattern. Our empirical study on three open source projects shows that 90% (i.e. 1935 out of 2140) of files exhibit at least one file editing pattern. More specifically (1) files that are edited concurrently by many developers are 1.8 times more likely to experience future bugs than files that are not concurrently edited; (2) files edited in parallel with too many other files by the same developer are 2.9 times more likely to exhibit future bugs than files individually edited; (3) files edited over an extended period of time are 1.9 times more likely to experience future bugs than other files; and (4) files edited with long interruptions have 2.0 times more future bugs than other files. We also observe that the likelihood of future bugs in files experiencing all the four file editing patterns is 3.9 times higher than in files that are never involved in any of the four patterns. We further investigate factors impacting the occurrence of these file editing patterns along three dimensions: the ownership of files, the type of change requests in which the files were involved, and the initial code quality of the files. Results show that a file with a major owner is 0.6 times less likely to exhibit the concurrent editing pattern than files without major owners. Files with bad code quality (e.g. high McCabe's complexity, high coupling between objects, and lack of cohesion) are more likely to experience the four editing patterns. By ensuring a clear ownership and improving code quality, the negative impact of the four patterns could be reduced. Overall, our findings could be used by software development teams to warn developers about risky file editing patterns. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".