Empirical Software Engineering

Abstract: The microservice architecture allows developers to divide the core functionality of their software system into multiple smaller services. However, this architectural style also makes it harder for them to debug and assess whether the system’s deployment conforms to its implementation.

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) have gained traction in recent years. A major non-functional quality of CPS is performance since it affects both usability and security. This critical quality attribute depends on the specialized hardware, simulation engines, and environmental factors that characterize the system under analysis. While a large body of research exists on performance issues in general, studies focusing on performance-related issues for CPSs are scarce. The goal of this paper is to build a taxonomy of performance issues in CPSs. To this aim, we present two empirical studies aimed at categorizing common performance issues (Study I) and helping developers detect them (Study II). In the first study, we examined commit messages and code changes in the history of 14 GitHub-hosted open-source CPS projects to identify commits that report and fix self-admitted performance issues. We manually analyzed 2699 commits, labeled them, and grouped the reported performance issues into antipatterns. We detected instances of three previously reported Software Performance Antipatterns (SPAs) for CPSs. Importantly, we also identified new SPAs for CPSs not described earlier in the literature. Furthermore, most performance issues identified in this study fall into two new antipattern categories: Hard Coded Fine Tuning (399 of 646) and Magical Waiting Number (150 of 646). In the second study, we introduce static analysis techniques for automatically detecting these two new antipatterns; we implemented them in a tool called AP-Spotter. We analyzed 9 open-source CPS projects not utilized to build the SPAs taxonomy to benchmark AP-Spotter. Our results show that AP-Spotter achieves 62.04% precision in detecting the antipatterns

Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained considerable traction within the Software Engineering (SE) community, impacting various SE tasks from code completion to test generation, from program repair to code summarization. Despite their promise, researchers must still be careful as numerous intricate factors can influence the outcomes of experiments involving LLMs. This paper initiates an open discussion on potential threats to the validity of LLM-based research including issues such as closed-source models, possible data leakage between LLM training data and research evaluation, and the reproducibility of LLM-based findings. In response, this paper proposes a set of guidelines tailored for SE researchers and Language Model (LM) providers to mitigate these concerns. The implications of the guidelines are illustrated using existing good practices followed by LLM providers and a practical example for SE researchers in the context of test case generation.

Mutation testing is well-known for its efficacy in assessing test quality, and starting to be applied in the industry. However, what should a developer do when confronted with a low mutation score? Should the test suite be plainly reinforced to increase the mutation score, or should the production code be improved as well, to make the creation of better tests possible? In this paper, we aim to provide a new perspective to developers that enables them to understand and reason about the mutation score in the light of testability and observability. First, we investigate whether testability and observability metrics are correlated with the mutation score on six open-source Java projects. We observe a correlation between observability metrics and the mutation score, e.g., test directness, which measures the extent to which the production code is tested directly, seems to be an essential factor. Based on our insights from the correlation study, we propose a number of ‘‘mutation score anti-patterns’’’, enabling software engineers to refactor their existing code or add tests to improve the mutation score. In doing so, we observe that relatively simple refactoring operations enable an improvement or increase in the mutation score.