Characterizing duplicate bugs: an empirical analysis

Simple item page
buir.contributor.authorTüzün, Eray
buir.contributor.orcidTüzün, Eray|0000-0002-5550-7816
dc.citation.epage668en_US
dc.citation.spage661en_US
dc.contributor.authorKüçük, Berfin
dc.contributor.authorTüzün, Eray
dc.coverage.spatialHonolulu, HI, USAen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-08T13:05:01Z
dc.date.available2022-02-08T13:05:01Z
dc.date.issued2021-05-11
dc.departmentDepartment of Computer Engineeringen_US
dc.descriptionConference Name: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)en_US
dc.descriptionDate of Conference: 9-12 March 2021en_US
dc.description.abstractBug handling is an essential part of the software development process. Ideally, in a bug tracking system, bugs are reported, fixed, verified, and closed. In some cases, bugs have to be reopened mostly due to an incorrect fix. However, instead of reopening the existing bug report, users may submit a new report on a previously reported bug, which causes duplicate bug reports. Additionally, users might report duplicate bugs if they are unable to reopen the previously reported bugs due to the bug being unresolved (i.e., in progress) and when they miss previously reported bug reports. These duplicate bug reports may cost extra maintenance efforts in triaging and fixing bugs.There have been several studies on characterizing reopened bugs and duplicate bug reports, however, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no prior work on understanding the dynamics of their intersection, which is missed reopen bugs. Our study is based on analyzing the differences between duplicate and non-duplicate bugs, and further categorizing the duplicated bugs. In this regard, we categorize duplicate bugs according to their creation time with respect to their master's resolution status as Master-Unresolved bugs and Master-Resolved (Missed Reopen bugs) to distinguish their properties. We compare these two different types of bugs in terms of various aspects such as their relationships to their master bugs, bug surface time, bug fix time, bug's severity, and the number of users involved. We perform case studies using the Eclipse and Mozilla projects' bug repositories that include more than 165,500 and 394,000 bug reports respectively.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Betül Özen (ozen@bilkent.edu.tr) on 2022-02-08T13:05:01Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Characterizing_Duplicate_Bugs_An_Empirical_Analysis.pdf: 1660077 bytes, checksum: aa0ddcc39e1bc3a57f1f2b9305c70dc5 (MD5)en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2022-02-08T13:05:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Characterizing_Duplicate_Bugs_An_Empirical_Analysis.pdf: 1660077 bytes, checksum: aa0ddcc39e1bc3a57f1f2b9305c70dc5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021-05-11en
dc.identifier.doi10.1109/SANER50967.2021.00084en_US
dc.identifier.eisbn978-1-7281-9630-5
dc.identifier.isbn978-1-7281-9631-2
dc.identifier.issn1534-5351
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/77136
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.publisherIEEEen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SANER50967.2021.00084en_US
dc.source.titleIEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)en_US
dc.subjectDuplicate bug reportsen_US
dc.subjectReopened bugsen_US
dc.subjectCharacterization studyen_US
dc.subjectBug managementen_US
dc.titleCharacterizing duplicate bugs: an empirical analysisen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Characterizing_Duplicate_Bugs_An_Empirical_Analysis.pdf
Size:
1.58 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.69 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Department of Computer Engineering