Abstract:Software product line (SPL) systems are widely employed to develop industrial projects. For an SPL system, different products/variants are created by combining different subsets of the system features. Because of the interaction of the different features, a bug in the system could cause failures for some products (failing products), but not for others (passing products); such types of bugs are called variability bugs . Due to their variability characteristics, detecting and fixing bugs in SPL systems is challenging. There are several solutions for localizing buggy statements in these systems. However, there is still a lack of research on automatically fixing these bugs. In this work, we aim to make the first attempt at automatically fixing buggy statements in the source code of SPL systems. This paper proposes two approaches, single-product-based and multi-product-based, to repair the variability bugs in an SPL system to fix the failures of the failing products and not to break the correct behaviors of the passing products. For the single-product-based approach, each failing product is fixed individually, and the obtained patches are then propagated and validated on the other products of the system. For the multi-product-based approach, all the products are repaired simultaneously. The patches are generated and validated by all the sampled products of the system in each repair iteration. Moreover, to improve the repair performance of both approaches, we also introduce several heuristic rules for effectively and efficiently deciding where to fix ( navigating modification points ) and how to fix ( selecting suitable modifications ). These heuristic rules use intermediate validation results of the repaired programs as feedback to refine the fault localization results and evaluate the suitability of the modifications before actually applying and validating them by test execution. Our experimental results on a dataset of 318 variability bugs of five popular SPL systems show that the single-product-based approach is around 20 times better than the multi-product-based approach in the number of correct fixes. Notably, the heuristic rules could improve the performance of both approaches by increasing of 30%–150% the number of correct fixes, and decreasing of 30%–50% the number of attempted modification operations.

Fixing Recurring Crash Bugs Via Analyzing Q&A Sites

Automatic Solution Summarization for Crash Bugs

Automatic, High Accuracy Prediction of Reopened Bugs

Accurate Developer Recommendation For Bug Resolution

Dual Analysis for Recommending Developers to Resolve Bugs

Beyond fixing bugs: case studies of creative collaboration in open source software bug fixing processes.

Mining Crash Fix Patterns

Can We Use Programmer's Knowledge? Fixing Parameter Configuration Errors in Hadoop Through Analyzing Q&A Sites

An Empirical Study of Refactoring Engine Bugs

Mining Python fix patterns via analyzing fine-grained source code changes

Repairing Crashes in Android Apps

A Software-Repair Robot based on Continual Learning

Shaping Program Repair Space with Existing Patches and Similar Code

Resolving Crash Bugs via Large Language Models: An Empirical Study

An Empirical Study of Bug Fixing Rate.

Automated program repair for variability bugs in software product line systems

Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for $0.42 each using ChatGPT

Bug Inducing Analysis to Prevent Fault Prone Bug Fixes.

An Effective Approach for Routing the Bug Reports to the Right Fixers.

A Fast Crash Reproduction Method for Android Applications Based On Widget Hierarchy Graphs

STEAM: Simulating the InTeractive BEhavior of ProgrAMmers for Automatic Bug Fixing