Miroirs/cooperative-software-development
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/amyjko/cooperative-software-development synced 2024-12-25 21:58:15 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Added year to citation.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Amy J. Ko 2019-11-12 12:27:24 -08:00 committed by GitHub
parent 570ede15ea
commit 1ca15aceab
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
debugging.html
View file

@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
<p>The problems with the strategy above are numerous. First, what if you can't think of a possible cause? Second, what if your hypothesis is way off? You could spend <em>hours</em> generating hypotheses that are completely off base, effectively analyzing all of your code before finding the defect.</p> <p>The problems with the strategy above are numerous. First, what if you can't think of a possible cause? Second, what if your hypothesis is way off? You could spend <em>hours</em> generating hypotheses that are completely off base, effectively analyzing all of your code before finding the defect.</p>
<p>Another strategy is working backwards (<a href="#ko">Ko & Myers</a>):</p> <p>Another strategy is working backwards (<a href="#ko">Ko & Myers 2008</a>):</p>
<ol> <ol>
<li>Observe failure</li> <li>Observe failure</li>
@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
<li>Repeat three recursively, analyzing all lines of code for defects along the chain of causality</li> <li>Repeat three recursively, analyzing all lines of code for defects along the chain of causality</li>
</ol> </ol>
<p>The nice thing about this strategy is that you're <em>guaranteed</em> to find the defect if you can accurately identify the causes of each line of code contributing to the failure. It still requires you to analyze each line of code and potentially execute to it in order to inspect what might be wrong, but it requires potentially less work than guessing. My dissertation work investigated how to automate this strategy, allowing you to simply click on the fault output and then immediately see all upstream causes of it (<a href="#ko">Ko & Myers</a>).</p> <p>The nice thing about this strategy is that you're <em>guaranteed</em> to find the defect if you can accurately identify the causes of each line of code contributing to the failure. It still requires you to analyze each line of code and potentially execute to it in order to inspect what might be wrong, but it requires potentially less work than guessing. My dissertation work investigated how to automate this strategy, allowing you to simply click on the fault output and then immediately see all upstream causes of it (<a href="#ko">Ko & Myers 2008</a>).</p>
<p>Yet another strategy called <em>delta debugging</em> is to compare successful and failing executions of the program (<a href="#zeller">Zeller 2002</a>):</p> <p>Yet another strategy called <em>delta debugging</em> is to compare successful and failing executions of the program (<a href="#zeller">Zeller 2002</a>):</p>