A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2010; you can also visit <a rel="external noopener" href="http://www.intercom.virginia.edu/~sherriff/papers/FSE07-Sherriff.pdf">the original URL</a>. The file type is <code>application/pdf</code>.
Using groupings of static analysis alerts to identify files likely to contain field failures
<span title="">2007</span>
<i title="ACM Press">
The 6th Joint Meeting on European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering companion papers - ESEC-FSE companion '07
</i>
Preserved Fulltext
In this paper, we propose a technique for leveraging historical field failure records in conjunction with automated static analysis alerts to determine which alerts or sets of alerts are predictive of a field failure. Our technique uses singular value decomposition to generate groupings of static analysis alert types, which we call alert signatures, that have been historically linked to field failure-prone files in previous releases of a software system. The signatures can be applied to sets of
<span class="external-identifiers">
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1145/1295014.1295042">doi:10.1145/1295014.1295042</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/release/pxgac6lubna3bksifsavzmxbum">fatcat:pxgac6lubna3bksifsavzmxbum</a>
</span>
more »
... alerts from a current build of a software system. Files that have a matching alert signature are identified as having similar static analysis alert characteristics to files with known field failures in a previous release of the system. We performed a case study involving an industrial software system at IBM and found three distinct alert signatures that could be applied to the system. We found that 50% of the field failures reported since the last static analysis run could be discovered by examining the 10% of the files and static analysis alerts indicated by these three alert signatures. The remaining failures were either not detected by a signature which could be an indication of a new type of error in the field, or they were on areas of the code where no static analysis alerts were detected.
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100724170551/http://www.intercom.virginia.edu/~sherriff/papers/FSE07-Sherriff.pdf" title="fulltext PDF download" data-goatcounter-click="serp-fulltext" data-goatcounter-title="serp-fulltext">
<button class="ui simple right pointing dropdown compact black labeled icon button serp-button">
<i class="icon ia-icon"></i>
Web Archive
[PDF]
<div class="menu fulltext-thumbnail">
<img src="https://blobs.fatcat.wiki/thumbnail/pdf/fe/b8/feb8c4a4f139c25d285115ec924dc989f39f3d5d.180px.jpg" alt="fulltext thumbnail" loading="lazy">
</div>
</button>
</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1145/1295014.1295042">
<button class="ui left aligned compact blue labeled icon button serp-button">
<i class="external alternate icon"></i>
acm.org
</button>
</a>