skip to main content
10.1145/3340495.3342753acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Predicting reliability by severity and priority of defects

Published:26 August 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Quality of software systems is continuing to be an important investigation of software systems. Assessing and predicting quality attributes of object-oriented design are performed by using software metrics, knowing that a good internal structure of software system influences in a great extent its external quality attributes.

This study presents an empirical investigation of software reliability. The goal is to identify the applicability of object-oriented design metrics for reliability prediction. Firstly, an estimation of the reliability is conducted. We proposed a new reliability metric at the class level considering two perspectives related to failures/bugs found, i.e. priority and severity. Later, the estimated reliability value helps us to predict the reliability of other software projects based on their internal structure. The prediction value for reliability can be made earlier in the software development life cycle.

The approach’s methodology for prediction is a statistical method, the multiple linear regression considering as dependent variable for our analysis the bugs count for a class (reflected in the newly proposed metric) and as independent variables the values of the Chidamber and Kemerer (CK) metrics. The results indicated that the most influential CK metrics in predicting reliability are WMC (Weighted Methods per Class) and CBO (Coupling Between Object classes), and that the RFC (Response For Class) and LCOM (Lack of Cohesion of Methods) metrics have no impact on the value of reliability. The root mean square error is used to validate our proposed regression equation considering data from the other four projects.

References

  1. Fernando B. Abreu and Walcelio Melo. 1996. Evaluating the impact of objectoriented design on software quality. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Metrics Symposium. 90–99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Harald Altinger, Sebastian Siegl, Yanja Dajsuren, and Franz Wotawa. 2015. A Novel Industry Grade Dataset for Fault Prediction Based on Model-driven Developed Automotive Embedded Software. In Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 494–497. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Victor Basili and D. Rombach. 1988. The TAME project: towards improvementoriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14, 6 (June 1988), 758–773. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Victor R. Basili, Lionel C. Briand, and Walcelio L. Melo. 1996. A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22, 10 (Oct 1996), 751–761. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Budur, C. Serban, and A. Vescan. 2019. Predicting Reliability of Object-Oriented Systems using Metrics-based Neural Network. In The 30th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (submitted). 0–0 (under review).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S.R. Chidamber and Chris F. Kemerer. 1994. A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 6 (June 1994), 476–493. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Marco D’Ambros, Michele Lanza, and Romain Robbes. 2010. An extensive comparison of bug prediction approaches. In 2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010). 31–41. 2010.5463279Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Amir Elmishali, Roni Stern, and Meir Kalech. 2018. An Artificial Intelligence paradigm for troubleshooting software bugs. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 69 (2018), 147 – 156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Equinox. Online; accessed 29 Feb 2019. Eclipse Equinox. https://projects.eclipse. org/projects/eclipse.equinoxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Norman Fenton. 1994. Software measurement: a necessary scientific basis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 3 (March 1994), 199–206. org/10.1109/32.268921 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kim Herzig. 2014. Using Pre-Release Test Failures to Build Early Post-Release Defect Prediction Models. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE ’14). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 300–311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. ISO25010. 2019. ISO25010 description information, https://iso25000.com/index. php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25010. https://www.iso.org/standard/35733.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. html. {Online; accessed 30-May-2019}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO9126. 2019. ISO9126 description information,ISO 9126-1:2001-Software engineering - Product quality. http://www.iso.org. {Online; accessed 30-May-2019}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. JDT. Online; accessed 29 Feb 2019. JDT Core Component. https://www.eclipse. org/jdt/core/index.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Barbara Kitchenham, Shari L. Pfleeger, and Norman E. Fenton. 1995. Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, 12 (Dec 1995), 929–944. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Wei Li. 1998. Another metric suite for object-oriented programming. Journal of Systems and Software 44, 2 (1998), 155 – 162. 1212(98)10052-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wei Li and Sallie Henry. 1993. Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 23, 2 (1993), 111 – 122. 0164-1212(93)90077-B Object-Oriented Software. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. H. Licht. 1995. Multiple regression and correlation. L. G. Grimm and P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics, Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association 0, 0 (1995), 19 – 64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucene. Online; accessed 29 Feb 2019. Lucene. http://lucene.apache.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Marinescu. 2002. Measurement and Quality in Object Oriented Design. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Automatics and Computer Science, University of Timisoara.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J.A. McCall, P.K. Richards, and G.F. Walters. 1977. Factors in Software Quality. Griffiths Air Force Base, N.Y. Rome Air Development Center Air Force Systems Command (1977).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mylyn. Online; accessed 29 Feb 2019. Mylyn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Standards Coordinating Committee of the IEEE Computer Society. {n. d.}. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, IEEE-STD-610.12-1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. PDE. Online; accessed 29 Feb 2019. PDE UI. https://www.eclipse.org/pde/pde-uiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. R. Pietrantuono and S. Russo. 2016. On Adaptive Sampling-Based Testing for Software Reliability Assessment. In 2016 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE). 1–11. 2016.50Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. R. Pietrantuono, S. Russo, and A. Guerriero. 2018. Run-Time Reliability Estimation of Microservice Architectures. In 2018 IEEE 29th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE). 25–35. 2018.00014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Quyoum, UdM. Din Dar, and S.M.K. Quadr. 2010. Improving software reliability using software engineering approachâĂŤa review. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 10, 5 (2010), 41 – 47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mei-Huei Tang, Ming-Hun Kao, and Mei-Hwa Chen. 1999. An empirical study on object-oriented metrics. In Proceedings Sixth International Software Metrics Symposium (Cat. No.PR00403). 242–249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Robert K. Yin. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods) (fourth edition. ed.). Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas Zimmermann, Nachiappan Nagappan, and Andreas Zeller. 2008. Predicting Bugs from History. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 69–88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Predicting reliability by severity and priority of defects

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SQUADE 2019: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Software Qualities and Their Dependencies
            August 2019
            38 pages
            ISBN:9781450368575
            DOI:10.1145/3340495

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 26 August 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Upcoming Conference

            ICSE 2025

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader