On the Use of Dependabot Security Pull Requests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerable dependencies are a major problem in modern software development. As software projects depend on multiple external dependencies, developers struggle to constantly track and check for corresponding security vulnerabilities that affect their project dependencies. To help mitigate this issue, Dependabot has been created, a bot that issues pull-requests to automatically update vulnerable dependencies. However, little is known about the degree to which developers adopt Dependabot to help them update vulnerable dependencies. In this paper, we investigate 2,904 JavaScript open-source GitHub projects that subscribed to Dependabot. Our results show that the vast majority (65.42%) of the created security-related pull-requests are accepted, often merged within a day. Through manual analysis, we identify 7 main reasons for Dependabot security pull-requests not being merged, mostly related to concurrent modifications of the affected dependencies rather than Dependabot failures. Interestingly, only 3.2% of the manually examined pull-requests suffered from build breakages. Finally, we model the time it takes to merge a Dependabot security pull-request using characteristics from projects, the fixed vulnerabilities and issued pull requests. Our model reveals 5 significant features to explain merge times, e.g., projects with relevant experience with Dependabot security pull-requests are most likely associated with rapid merges. Surprisingly, the severity of the dependency vulnerability and the potential risk of breaking changes are not strongly associated with the merge time. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate how developers receive Dependabot's security contributions. Our findings indicate that Dependabot provides an effective platform for increasing awareness of dependency vulnerabilities and helps developers mitigate vulnerability threats in JavaScript projects.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".