Accurate Method and Variable Tracking in Commit History

30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE'2022), Singapore, November 14–18, 2022

Transcript

1. Accurate Method and Variable Tracking in Commit History November 14-16, 2022 Nikolaos Tsantalis Mehran Jodavi
2. Developers frequently track code change history • Recover the rationale behind a snippet of code • Find the commits that introduced a bug • Find who are the knowledgeable peers on certain modules • Keep up with the code state evolution • Reverse engineer requirements from code • Apply changes from one branch to another 2 Mihai Codoban, Sruti Srinivasa Ragavan, Danny Dig, and Brian Bailey, Software History under the Lens: A Study on Why and How Developers Examine It (ICSME 2015)
3. Blame and text diff are not sufficient Grund et al. 2021 • Developers prefer source code history information at method/function level, rather than the file level • Current tools are unable to find the commit that introduced a method LaToza & Myers 2010 • “Where was this variable last changed?” • “When, how, by whom, and why was this code changed or inserted?” • “How this code changed over time?” 3 Felix Grund, Shaiful Alam Chowdhury, Nick Bradley, Braxton Hall, and Reid Holmes, CodeShovel: Constructing Method-Level Source Code Histories (ICSE 2021) Thomas D. LaToza and Brad A. Myers, Hard-to-Answer Questions about Code (PLATEAU 2010)
4. Program element tracking tools • Function/Method tracking at commit level • CodeShovel [Grund et al. 2021] • FinerGit [Higo et al. 2020] & Historage [Hata et al. 2011] • Sunghun Kim et al. 2005 • Function, file, subsystem tracking at release/version level • Beagle (original analysis) [Godfrey and Zou 2005] • Type, method, field tracking at commit level • Tempura (Lee et al. 2015) • Hora et al. 2018 (change graph) 4
5. Limitations of previous approaches • Dependence on similarity thresholds • thresholds need calibration for projects with different characteristics • Partially refactoring-aware • Support method signature changes, method moves, file rename/moves • No support for Extract/Inline method → mismatching methods from which a significant part of their body (>75%) has been extracted to new methods • No support for local variable tracking 5
6. Contributions 1. We improve both precision and recall in method tracking over CodeShovel [Grund et al. 2021] 2. First to support variable tracking with 99.7% precision and 99.8% recall 3. We fix and extend Grund et al. oracle by adding the change history of 1345 variables 4. Evolution hooks to model the change history of methods extracted/inlined from/to the tracked method of interest 6
7. 7 Challenge How can we take advantage of RefactoringMiner accuracy in a way that is not computationally expensive? Solution Partial and incremental commit analysis based on the location of the tracked program element RefactoringMiner supports 90 refactoring types with very high precision (>99%) and recall (>94%)
8. Step #2 Using er signature as is Step #3 Using er signature omitting method’s body hashed value Step #4 Using RMiner to find the best matching method with signature changes Step #5a Using RMiner to check if er container was renamed or moved Step #5b Using RMiner to check if er itself was moved to another container Step #1 git log --follow filePath input 1. Git repository URL 2. Start commit SHA-1 3. File path 4. Program element name 5. Start line number For each commit r, in which filePath changed, locate e in parent commit p (ep ) If at any step ep is located, skip all subsequent steps and proceed with the next commit. If er is found as introduced the process terminates.
9. g input 1. Git repository URL 2. Start commit SHA-1 3. File path 4. Program element name 5. Start line number
10. Step #1 git log --follow filePath 1
11. Step #2 Using er signature as is Partial model for child & parent commits including only the filePath source file
12. Step #3 Using er signature omitting method’s body hashed value Partial model for child & parent commits including only the filePath source file
13. Step #4 Using RMiner to find the best matching method with signature changes Partial model for child & parent commits including only the filePath source file
14. Step #5a Using RMiner to check if er container was renamed or moved Add all modified & deleted files in parent commit + few modified files in child commit matching heuristics
15. Step #5b Using RMiner to check if er itself was moved to another container s a Add all modified & deleted files in parent commit + few modified files in child commit matching heuristics
16. o o If at any step ep is located, skip all subsequent steps and proceed with the next commit. If er is found as introduced the process terminates.
17. Evaluation RQ1 : What is the accuracy of CodeTracker in method tracking and how does it compare to that of CodeShovel? RQ2 : What is the accuracy of CodeTracker in variable tracking? RQ3 : How does the execution time of CodeTracker compare to that of CodeShovel? RQ4 : What is the execution time speedup of CodeTracker over the default operation mode of RefactoringMiner? 17
18. Oracle construction • Extended the CodeShovel oracle [Grund et al., ICSE’2021 Distinguished Paper], which includes the change history of 200 methods from 20 open-source projects (10 methods from each project) • Corrected discrepancies due to incorrect matches of methods with methods extracted from their body (27 cases) • Added newly supported changes for annotations and documentation • Added the change history of 1345 variables declared within these 200 methods 18
19. Method tracking precision & recall 19 Tool TP FP FN Precision Recall CodeShovel 3527 287 139 92.48 96.21 CodeTracker 3664 1 0 99.97 100 Tool TP FP FN Precision Recall CodeShovel 4327 440 270 90.77 94.13 CodeTracker 4594 6 3 99.87 99.93 Commit level Change level +7% +4% +9% +6%
20. Variable tracking precision & recall 20 Tool TP FP FN Precision Recall CodeTracker 1971 3 1 99.85 99.95 Tool TP FP FN Precision Recall CodeTracker 2037 7 3 99.66 99.85 Commit level Change level
21. Execution time • CodeTracker is 1.6 times slower • Median: 3.35 seconds • Average: 5.5 seconds 21
22. Speedup over RefactoringMiner • Executed RefactoringMiner with its default operation mode • All modified/added files in child commit • All modified/removed files in parent commit • Compared with CodeTracker execution time (steps 2-5) • 3 times faster on median • 7 times faster on average • Despite the significant speedup only a small number of FPs/FNs is introduced, due to MoveMethod changes misreported as FileMove 22
23. Conclusions • CodeTracker: Fully refactoring-aware commit change history • No similarity thresholds • High accuracy: >99% precision and recall • Fast: 3.35 seconds on median for the entire commit change history • Better than competitive tools (CodeShovel): +9% precision, +6% recall 24 https://github.com/jodavimehran/code-tracker • Future (current) work • We already extended the tool to support field and block (loops, try, if) tracking • We made a Chrome extension to show the change history on GitHub