Search for: All records

Code intelligence tools such as GitHub Copilot have begun to bridge the gap between natural language and programming language. A frequent software development task is the management of technical debts, which are suboptimal solutions or unaddressed issues which hinder future software development. Developers have been found to ``self-admit'' technical debts (SATD) in software artifacts such as source code comments. Thus, is it possible that the information present in these comments can enhance code generative prompts to repay the described SATD? Or, does the inclusion of such comments instead cause code generative tools to reproduce the harmful symptoms of described technical debt? Does the modification of SATD impact this reaction? Despite the heavy maintenance costs caused by technical debt and the recent improvements of code intelligence tools, no prior works have sought to incorporate SATD towards prompt engineering. Inspired by this, this paper contributes and analyzes a dataset consisting of 36,381 TODO comments in the latest available revisions of their respective 102,424 repositories, from which we sample and manually generate 1,140 code bodies using GitHub Copilot. Our experiments show that GitHub Copilot can generate code with the symptoms of SATD, both prompted and unprompted. Moreover, we demonstrate the tool's ability to automatically repay SATD under different circumstances and qualitatively investigate the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful comments. Finally, we discuss gaps in which GitHub Copilot's successors and future researchers can improve upon code intelligence tasks to facilitate AI-assisted software maintenance. 

Deep Learning (DL) techniques are increasingly being incorporated in critical software systems today. DL software is buggy too. Recent work in SE has characterized these bugs, studied fix patterns, and proposed detection and localization strategies. In this work, we introduce a preventative measure. We propose design by contract for DL libraries, DL Contract for short, to document the properties of DL libraries and provide developers with a mechanism to identify bugs during development. While DL Contract builds on the traditional design by contract techniques, we need to address unique challenges. In particular, we need to document properties of the training process that are not visible at the functional interface of the DL libraries. To solve these problems, we have introduced mechanisms that allow developers to specify properties of the model architecture, data, and training process. We have designed and implemented DL Contract for Python-based DL libraries and used it to document the properties of Keras, a well-known DL library. We evaluate DL Contract in terms of effectiveness, runtime overhead, and usability. To evaluate the utility of DL Contract, we have developed 15 sample contracts specifically for training problems and structural bugs. We have adopted four well-vetted benchmarks from prior works on DL bug detection and repair. For the effectiveness, DL Contract correctly detects 259 bugs in 272 real-world buggy programs, from well-vetted benchmarks provided in prior work on DL bug detection and repair. We found that the DL Contract overhead is fairly minimal for the used benchmarks. Lastly, to evaluate the usability, we conducted a survey of twenty participants who have used DL Contract to find and fix bugs. The results reveal that DL Contract can be very helpful to DL application developers when debugging their code. 

Recent work has shown that Machine Learning (ML) programs are error-prone and called for contracts for ML code. Contracts, as in the design by contract methodology, help document APIs and aid API users in writing correct code. The question is: what kinds of contracts would provide the most help to API users? We are especially interested in what kinds of contracts help API users catch errors at earlier stages in the ML pipeline. We describe an empirical study of posts on Stack Overflow of the four most often-discussed ML libraries: TensorFlow, Scikit-learn, Keras, and PyTorch. For these libraries, our study extracted 413 informal (English) API specifications. We used these specifications to understand the following questions. What are the root causes and effects behind ML contract violations? Are there common patterns of ML contract violations? When does understanding ML contracts require an advanced level of ML software expertise? Could checking contracts at the API level help detect the violations in early ML pipeline stages? Our key findings are that the most commonly needed contracts for ML APIs are either checking constraints on single arguments of an API or on the order of API calls. The software engineering community could employ existing contract mining approaches to mine these contracts to promote an increased understanding of ML APIs. We also noted a need to combine behavioral and temporal contract mining approaches. We report on categories of required ML contracts, which may help designers of contract languages.