MimEc: intelligent user notification of faults in the eclipse IDE
Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering
A report on a survey and study of static analysis users
DEFECTS '08 Proceedings of the 2008 workshop on Defects in large software systems
An industrial case study of architecture conformance
Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement
Assessing architectural drift in commercial software development: a case study
Software—Practice & Experience
Does bug prediction support human developers? findings from a google case study
Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering
Why don't software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs?
Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The longer a fault remains in the code from the time it was injected, the more time it will take to fix the fault. Increasingly, automated fault detection (AFD) tools are providing developers with prompt feedback on recently-introduced faults to reduce fault fix time. If, however, the frequency and content of this feedback does not match the developer's goals and/or workflow, the developer may ignore the information. We conducted a controlled study with 18 developers to explore what factors are used by developers to decide whether or not to address a fault when notified of the error. The findings of our study lead to several conjectures about the design of AFD tools to effectively notify developers of faults in the coding phase. The AFD tools should present fault information that is relevant to the primary programming task with accurate and precise descriptions. The fault severity and the specific timing of fault notification should be customizable. Finally, the AFD tool must be accurate and reliable to build trust with the developer.