Defect prediction is a method of identifying possible locations of software defects without testing. Software tests can be laborious and costly thus one may expect defect prediction to be a first class citizen in software engineering. Nonetheless, the industry apparently does not see it that way as the level of practical usages is limited. The study describes the possible reasons of the low adoption and suggests a number of improvements for defect prediction, including a confusion matrix-based model for assessing the costs and gains. The improvements are designed to increase the level of practitioners acceptance of defect prediction by removing the recognized by authors implementation obstacles. The obtained predictors showed acceptable performance. The results were processed through the suggested model for assessing the costs and gains and showed the potential of significant benefits, i.e. up to 90% of the overall cost of the considered test activities.
KettunenV., KasurinenJ., TaipaleO. and SmolanderK.A study on agility and testing processes in software organizations, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ACM, 2010, pp. 231–240 .
2.
MisirliA.T., BenerA. and KaleR.Ai-based software defect predictors: Applications and benefits in a case study, AI Magazine32(2) (2011), 57–68.
3.
TaipaleT., QvistM. and TurhanB.Constructing Defect Predictors and Communicating the Outcomes to Practitioners, in: Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2013 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE, 2013, pp. 357–362 .
4.
TantithamthavornC. and HassanA.E.An Experience Report on Defect Modelling in Practice: Pitfalls and Challenges, in: International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP’18), 2018, pp. 71–73.
5.
WeyukerE. and OstrandT.J.An Automated Fault Prediction System, in: Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It, “O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2010, 145–160.
6.
HalsteadM.H.Elements of Software Science (Operating and Programming Systems Series), Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1977.
7.
HallT., BeechamS., BowesD., GrayD. and CounsellS.A systematic literature review on fault prediction performance in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering38(6) (2012), 1276–1304.
8.
JureczkoM. and MadeyskiL.A review of process metrics in defect prediction studies, Metody Informatyki Stosowanej30(5) (2011), 133–145.
9.
ShivajiS., WhiteheadE.J., AkellaR. and KimS.Reducing features to improve code change-based bug prediction, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on39(4) (2013), 552–569.
10.
WeyukerE.J., OstrandT.J. and BellR.M.Programmer– based Fault Prediction, in: PROMISE ‘10: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering, ACM, 2010, pp. 19–11910.
11.
ZimmermannT., PremrajR. and ZellerA.Predicting Defects for Eclipse, in: PROMISE ‘07: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Predictor Models in Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2007, p. 9.
12.
ZhangF., HassanA.E., McIntoshS. and ZouY.The use of summation to aggregate software metrics hinders the performance of defect prediction models, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering43(5) (2017), 476–491.
13.
KimS., WhiteheadE.J. and ZhangY.Classifying software changes: Clean or buggy?Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on34(2) (2008), 181–196.
14.
MadeyskiL. and JureczkoM.Which process metrics can significantly improve defect prediction models?An empirical study, Software Quality Journal23(3) (2015), 393–422, ISSN 0963-9314.
15.
FentonN.E. and NeilM.A critique of software defect prediction models, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering25 (1999), 675–689.
16.
BriandL.C., MeloW.L. and WustJ.Assessing the applicability of fault-proneness models across object-oriented software projects, Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on28(7) (2002), 706–720.
17.
BellR.M., WeyukerE.J. and OstrandT.J.Assessing the impact of using fault prediction in industry, in: Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), 2011 IEEE Fourth International Conference on, IEEE, 2011, pp. 561–565.
18.
YangY., FalessiD., MenziesT. and HihnJ.Actionable analytics for software engineering, IEEE Software35(1) (2018), 51–53.
19.
ChawlaN.V., BowyerK.W., HallL.O. and KegelmeyerW.P.SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research16(5) (2002), 321–357.
20.
JureczkoM. and MagottJ.QualitySpy: A framework for monitoring software development processes, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Computer Science6(1) (2012), 35–45.
21.
ShihabE., IharaA., KameiY., IbrahimW.M., OhiraM., AdamsB., HassanA.E. and MatsumotoK-i, Studying reopened bugs in open source software, Empirical Software Engineering18(5) (2013), 1005–1042.
22.
HryszkoJ. and MadeyskiL.Cost effectiveness of software defect prediction in an industrial project, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences43(1) (2018), 7–35.
23.
BowesD., HallT. and GrayD.DConfusion: A technique to allow cross study performance evaluation of fault prediction studies, Automated Software Engineering21(2) (2014), 287–313.
24.
AnL., KhomhF. and AdamsB.Supplementary bug fixes vs. re-opened bugs, in: Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM), 2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on, IEEE, 2014, pp. 205–214 .
25.
JureczkoM.Predicting re– opens - practical aspects of defect prediction models, in: Zastosowania metod statystycznych w badaniach naukowych V,
JakubowskiJ.
ed., StatSoftolska, Krakow, 2012, pp. 59–66, Chap. 8.
26.
XiaX., LoD., WangX., YangX., LiS. and SunJ.A comparative study of supervised learning algorithms for re-opened bug prediction, in: Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), 2013 17th European Conference on, IEEE, 2013, pp. 331–334.
27.
XiaX., LoD., ShihabE., WangX. and ZhouB.Automatic, high accuracy prediction of reopened bugs, Automated Software Engineering22(1) (2015), 75–109.
28.
AntoniolG., AyariK., Di PentaM., KhomhF. and GuéhéneucY.-G.Is it a bug or an enhancement? A text-based approach to classify change requests, in: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research: Meeting of Minds, ACM, 2008, p. 23.
29.
AroraI., TetarwalV. and SahaA.Open issues in software defect prediction, Procedia Computer Science46 (2015), 906–912.
30.
KhoshgoftaarT.M. and AllenE.B.Classification of faultprone software modules: Prior probabilities, costs, and model evaluation, Empirical Software Engineering3(3) (1998), 275–298.
31.
KhoshgoftaarT. and AllenE.Logistic regression modeling of software quality, International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering6(04) (1999), 303–317.
32.
JiangY., CukicB. and MenziesT.Cost curve evaluation of fault prediction models, in: Software Reliability Engineering, 2008 ISSRE 2008. 19th International Symposium on, IEEE, 2008, pp. 197–206.
33.
ArisholmE., BriandL.C. and JohannessenE.B.A systematic and comprehensive investigation of methods to build and evaluate fault prediction models, Journal of Systems and Software83(1) (2010), 2–17.
34.
MendeT. and KoschkeR.Effort-aware defect prediction models, in: Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), 2010 14th European Conference on, IEEE, 2010, pp. 107–116.
35.
KameiY., MatsumotoS., MondenA., MatsumotoK.-I., AdamsB. and HassanA.E.Revisiting common bug prediction findings using effort-aware models, Software Maintenance (ICSM), 2010 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, 2010, 1–10 .
36.
KameiY., ShihabE., AdamsB., HassanA.E., MockusA., SinhaA. and UbayashiN.A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering39(6) (2013), 757–773.
37.
KameiY., FukushimaT., McIntoshS., YamashitaK., UbayashiN. and HassanA.E.Studying just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models, Empirical Software Engineering21(5) (2016), 2072–2106.
38.
ShihabE., JiangZ.M., IbrahimW.M., AdamsB. and HassanA.E.Understanding the impact of code and process metrics on post-release defects: A case study on the Eclipse project, in: ESEM ‘10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010, pp. 1–10.
39.
CaglayanB., MisirliA.T., MiranskyyA., TurhanB. and BenerA.Factors characterizing reopened issues: A case study, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering, ACM, 2012, pp. 1–10.
40.
ZimmermannT., NagappanN., GuoP.J. and MurphyB.Characterizing and predicting which bugs get reopened, in: Software Engineering (ICSE), 2012 34th International Conference on, IEEE, 2012, pp. 1074–1083 .
41.
HerzigK., JustS. and ZellerA.It’s not a bug, it’s a feature: How misclassification impacts bug prediction, in: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Press, 2013, pp. 392–401.
42.
BirdC., BachmannA., AuneE., DuffyJ., BernsteinA., FilkovV. and DevanbuP.Fair and balanced? Bias in bug-fix datasets, in: Proceedings of the the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering, ACM, 2009, pp. 121–130.
43.
OstrandT.J., WeyukerE.J. and BellR.M.Where the bugs are, in: ISSTA '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2004, pp. 86–96.
