How Developers Engage with Static Analysis Tools in Different Contexts

Carmine Vassallo, Sebastiano Panichella, Fabio Palomba, S. Proksch, A.E. Zaidman, HC Gall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Automatic static analysis tools (ASATs) are instruments that support code quality assessment by automatically detecting defects and design issues. Despite their popularity, they are characterized by (i) a high false positive rate and (ii) the low comprehensibility of the generated warnings. However, no prior studies have investigated the usage of ASATs in different development contexts (e.g., code reviews, regular development), nor how open source projects integrate ASATs into their workflows. These perspectives are paramount to improve the prioritization of the identified warnings. To shed light on the actual ASATs usage practices, in this paper we first survey 56 developers (66% from industry and 34% from open source projects) and interview 11 industrial experts leveraging ASATs in their workflow with the aim of understanding how they use ASATs in different contexts. Furthermore, to investigate how ASATs are being used in the workflows of open source projects, we manually inspect the contribution guidelines of 176 open-source systems and extract the ASATs’ configuration and build files from their corresponding GitHub repositories. Our study highlights that (i) 71% of developers do pay attention to different warning categories depending on the development context; (ii) 63% of our respondents rely on specific factors (e.g., team policies and composition) when prioritizing warnings to fix during their programming; and (iii) 66% of the projects define how to use specific ASATs, but only 37% enforce their usage for new contributions. The perceived relevance of ASATs varies between different projects and domains, which is a sign that ASATs use is still not a common practice. In conclusion, this study confirms previous findings on the unwillingness of developers to configure ASATs and it emphasizes the necessity to improve existing strategies for the selection and prioritization of ASATs warnings that are shown to developers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1419-1457
Number of pages39
JournalEmpirical Software Engineering
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Keywords

  • Code review
  • Continuous integration
  • Development context
  • Empirical study
  • Static analysis tools

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'How Developers Engage with Static Analysis Tools in Different Contexts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this