Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded bySonia Haiduc
Supporting program comprehension with source code summarization icse nier 2010
The document discusses the importance of source code summarization in aiding program comprehension for developers, highlighting the difference between skimming and in-depth reading of code. It outlines methods for generating automatic code summaries that include both semantic and structural information, and provides insights from a preliminary evaluation comparing automatic summaries to those created by developers. The study suggests that these automatic summaries can reduce the effort required for understanding code while offering accurate and concise descriptions of various software entities.
Supporting program comprehension with source code summarization icse nier 2010
- 1. Supporting Program Comprehension withSource Code Summarization Sonia Haiduc*, Jairo Aponte**, Andrian Marcus* ICSE NIER 2010 * **
- 2. Developers read sourcecode • Before performing maintenance on a system, developers need to understand its source code • During comprehension, programmers search and browse the code
- 3. Skimming vs. readingcode • Skimming (Starke’09): quickly reading the names of software artifacts + Fast – Insufficient information – Shallow understanding • Reading in depth – Slow – Too much information + Deeper understanding
- 4. Code summaries • Automaticallygenerated, short, yet accurate descriptions of source code entities • They give more information than just the header or the name of an artifact • Significantly shorter and faster to read than the source code they summarize
- 5. What should wesummarize? • Code – Packages – Classes – Methods – Method sequences – Etc. • Other artifacts – Bug reports (ICSE 2010 - S. Rastakar, G. Murphy, G. Murray) – E-mails – Etc.
- 6. What should weinclude in code summaries? • Semantic information – What does the source code do? – Identifiers and comments that capture the main concepts • Structural information – How does the code work? – Class relationships, callers and callees, members of a class, etc.
- 7. Description: VFS virtualfile system read write mkdir directory path save + Internal classes: DirectoryEntry + Methods: listDirectory, mkdir, constructPath + Fields: WRITE_CAP, READ_CAP, lock + Sub-classes: FileVFS, FavoritesVFS + Other: ...
- 8. How should wegenerate code summaries? • Semantic information: automatic text summarization – Machine Learning – Discourse-based approaches – Term-based Text Retrieval techniques • Structural information: static analysis
- 9. How can weevaluate code summaries? • How good are the automatic summaries when compared to manual ones? • How useful are the automatic code summaries for SE tasks?
- 10. Preliminary evaluation • Comparedautomatic code summaries with developer code summaries • 6 developers, 12 methods in ATunes • Used only lexical information – 5 most relevant terms
- 11. Results • Automatic sourcecode summaries good in reflecting developers’ summaries • Text Retrieval techniques work as well on source code as on natural language in reflecting human summaries • Developers make use of structural information in their code summaries: – Method name terms – Class name terms – Formal parameter types terms
- 12. What are wedoing now? • What type and how much structural information should be included in code summaries? • How do developers generate summaries? • Are different summaries needed for different tasks? • How useful are the code summaries for SE tasks?, etc.
- 13. In summary… • Automaticcode summaries: – Short yet accurate descriptions of source code – Can reduce the effort of program comprehension – Embed both semantic and structural information – Can be generated for a variety of software entities • Visit my poster (HINT: look for the huge and colorful one) • www.cs.wayne.edu/~severe and www.cs.wayne.edu/~shaiduc • sonja@wayne.edu