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

debugging: added links, fixed inline links

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
bxie 2017-05-08 12:26:11 -07:00
parent 4cd4e453ff
commit b45a04024a
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
debugging.html
View file

@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
<p>Despite all of your hard work at design, implementation, and verification, your software has failed. Somewhere in its implementation there's a line of code, or multiple lines of code, that, given a particular set of inputs, causes the program to fail. How do you find those defective lines of code? You debug, and you're doing it right, you do it systematically (<a href="#zeller2">Zeller 2009</a>).</p>
<p>To start, you have to <strong>reproduce</strong> the failure. Failure reproduction is a matter of identifying inputs to the program (whether data it receives upon being executed, user inputs, network traffic, or any other form of input) that causes the failure to occur. If you found this failure while <em>you</em> were executing the program, then you're lucky: you should be able to repeat whatever you just did and identify the inputs or series of inputs that caused the problem, giving you a way of testing that the program no longer fails once you've fixed the defect. If someone else was the one executing the program (for example, a user, or someone on your team), you better hope that they reported clear steps for reproducing the problem. When bug reports lack clear reproduction steps, bugs often can't be fixed (<a href="bettenburg">Bettenburg et al. 2008</a>).</p>
<p>To start, you have to <strong>reproduce</strong> the failure. Failure reproduction is a matter of identifying inputs to the program (whether data it receives upon being executed, user inputs, network traffic, or any other form of input) that causes the failure to occur. If you found this failure while <em>you</em> were executing the program, then you're lucky: you should be able to repeat whatever you just did and identify the inputs or series of inputs that caused the problem, giving you a way of testing that the program no longer fails once you've fixed the defect. If someone else was the one executing the program (for example, a user, or someone on your team), you better hope that they reported clear steps for reproducing the problem. When bug reports lack clear reproduction steps, bugs often can't be fixed (<a href="#bettenburg">Bettenburg et al. 2008</a>).</p>
<p>If you can reproduce the problem, the next challenge is to <strong>localize</strong> the defect, trying to identify the cause of the failure in code. There are many different strategies for localizing defects. At the highest level, one can think of this process as a hypothesis testing activity (<a href="#gilmore">Gilmore 1991</a>):</p>
@ -87,9 +87,9 @@
<p id="aranda">Jorge Aranda and Gina Venolia. 2009. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2009.5070530">The secret life of bugs: Going past the errors and omissions in software repositories</a>. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '09). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 298-308.</p>
<p id="bettenburg">Nicolas Bettenburg, Sascha Just, Adrian Schr&oumlter, Cathrin Weiss, Rahul Premraj, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2008. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1453101.1453146">What makes a good bug report?</a> In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering (SIGSOFT '08/FSE-16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 308-318.</p>
<p id="gilmore">Gilmore, D. (1991). Models of debugging. Acta Psychologica, 78, 151-172.</p>
<p id="gilmore">Gilmore, D. (1991). <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000169189190009O">Models of debugging</a>. Acta Psychologica, 78, 151-172.</p>
<p id="ko">Andrew J. Ko and Brad A. Myers. 2008. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368130">Debugging reinvented: asking and answering why and why not questions about program behavior</a>. In Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering (ICSE '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301-310.</p>
<p id="murphyhill">Emerson Murphy-Hill, Thomas Zimmermann, Christian Bird, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2013. The design of bug fixes. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 332-341.</p>
<p id="murphyhill">Emerson Murphy-Hill, Thomas Zimmermann, Christian Bird, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2013. <a href="http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486833">The design of bug fixes</a>. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 332-341.</p>
<p id="yin">Zuoning Yin, Ding Yuan, Yuanyuan Zhou, Shankar Pasupathy, and Lakshmi Bairavasundaram. 2011. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025121">How do fixes become bugs?</a> In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 26-36.</p>
<p id="zeller">Andreas Zeller. 2002. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/587051.587053">Isolating cause-effect chains from computer programs</a>. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering (SIGSOFT '02/FSE-10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-10.</p>