Search

Code review is an important process for quality assurance in software development. For an effective code review, the reviewers must explain their feedback to enable the authors of the code change to act on them. However, the explanation needs may differ among developers, who may require different types of explanations. It is therefore crucial to understand what kind of explanations reviewers usually use in code reviews. To the best of our knowledge, no study published to date has analyzed the types of explanations used in code review. In this study, we present the first analysis of explanations in useful code reviews. We extracted a set of code reviews based on their usefulness and labeled them based on whether they contained an explanation, a solution, or both a proposed solution and an explanation thereof. Based on our analysis, we found that a significant portion of the code review comments (46%) only include solutions without providing an explanation. We further investigated the remaining 54% of code review comments containing an explanation and conducted an open card sorting to categorize the reviewers' explanations. We distilled seven distinct categories of explanations based on the expression forms developers used. Then, we utilize large language models, specifically ChatGPT, to assist developers in getting a code review explanation that suits their preferences. Specifically, we created prompts to transform a code review explanation into a specific type of explanation. Our evaluation results show that ChatGPT correctly generated the specified type of explanation in 88/90 cases and that 89/90 of the cases have the correct explanation. Overall, our study provides insights into the types of explanations that developers use in code review and showcases how ChatGPT can be leveraged during the code review process to generate a specific type of explanation.

Previous works from research and industry have proposed a spatial representation of code in a canvas, arguing that a navigational code space confers developers the freedom to organise elements according to their understanding. By allowing developers to translate logical relatedness into spatial proximity, this code representation could aid in code navigation and comprehension. However, the association between developers' code comprehension and their visuo-spatial mental model of the code is not yet well understood. This mental model is affected on the one hand by the spatial code representation and on the other by the visuo-spatial working memory of developers. We address this knowledge gap by conducting an online experiment with 20 developers following a between-subject design. The control group used a conventional tab-based code visualization, while the experimental group used a code canvas to complete three code comprehension tasks. Furthermore, we measure the participants' visuo-spatial working memory using a Corsi Block test at the end of the tasks. Our results suggest that, overall, neither the spatial representation of code nor the visuo-spatial working memory of developers has a significant impact on comprehension performance. However, we identified significant differences in the time dedicated to different comprehension activities such as navigation, annotation, and UI interactions., Comment: To appear in 2023 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2023). Authors' version of the work

Software projects use Issue Tracking Systems (ITS) like JIRA to track issues and organize the workflows around them. Issues are often inter-connected via different links such as the default JIRA link types Duplicate, Relate, Block, or Subtask. While previous research has mostly focused on analyzing and predicting duplication links, this work aims at understanding the various other link types, their prevalence, and characteristics towards a more reliable link type prediction. For this, we studied 607,208 links connecting 698,790 issues in 15 public JIRA repositories. Besides the default types, the custom types Depend, Incorporate, Split, and Cause were also common. We manually grouped all 75 link types used in the repositories into five general categories: General Relation, Duplication, Composition, Temporal / Causal, and Workflow. Comparing the structures of the corresponding graphs, we observed several trends. For instance, Duplication links tend to represent simpler issue graphs often with two components and Composition links present the highest amount of hierarchical tree structures (97.7%). Surprisingly, General Relation links have a significantly higher transitivity score than Duplication and Temporal / Causal links. Motivated by the differences between the link types and by their popularity, we evaluated the robustness of two state-of-the-art duplicate detection approaches from the literature on the JIRA dataset. We found that current deep-learning approaches confuse between Duplication and other links in almost all repositories. On average, the classification accuracy dropped by 6% for one approach and 12% for the other. Extending the training sets with other link types seems to partly solve this issue. We discuss our findings and their implications for research and practice., Comment: 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR '22), May 23--24, 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA acmDOI: 10.1145/3524842.3528457