Construção de um classificador automático de severidade de bugs para sistemas open source

Software bug analysis is one of the most important activities in Software Quality. The rapid and correct implementation of the necessary repair influence both developers, who must leave the fully functioning software, and users, who need to perform their daily tasks. In this context, if there is an incorrect classification of bugs, there may be unwanted situations. One of the main factors to be assigned bugs in the act of its initial report is severity, which lives up to the urgency of correcting that problem. In this scenario, we identified in datasets with data extracted from five open source systems (Apache, Eclipse, Kernel, Mozilla and Open Office), that there is an irregular distribution of bugs with respect to existing severities, which is an early sign of misclassification. In the dataset analyzed, exists a rate of about 85% bugs being ranked with normal severity. Therefore, this classification rate can have a negative influence on software development context, where the misclassified bug can be allocated to a developer with little experience to solve it and thus the correction of the same may take longer, or even generate a incorrect implementation. Several studies in the literature have disregarded the normal bugs, working only with the portion of bugs considered severe or not severe initially. This work aimed to investigate this portion of the data, with the purpose of identifying whether the normal severity reflects the real impact and urgency, to investigate if there are bugs (initially classified as normal) that could be classified with other severity, and to assess if there are impacts for developers in this context. For this, an automatic classifier was developed, which was based on three algorithms (Näive Bayes, Max Ent and Winnow) to assess if normal severity is correct for the bugs categorized initially with this severity. The algorithms presented accuracy of about 80%, and showed that between 21% and 36% of the bugs should have been classified differently (depending on the algorithm), which represents somewhere between 70,000 and 130,000 bugs of the dataset.

A objetivação da linguagem no (con)texto do vestibular : mo(vi)mentos na história e no político

In this study, we join up in the theoretical assumptions of the French Discourse Analysis in order to analyze effects of the demand of objectification of language in the context of vestibular essays. More specifically, we analyze the operation of said objectification via discourses constructed by the traditional vestibular exam due to the requirement to have, in the students’ essays, paraphrases of statements from the motivating texts (TM) of the test in question. From our perspective, the objectification mechanism of language, the paraphrase, in the vestibular, its logic of clarity and non-contradiction of ideas, is made by (in)determination of senses in the order of its speech and, also, in its practice: the correction of the vestibular essay. Therefore, in spite of what is assumed as guarantee to language in the moment of the vestibular essay, we suggest there are regularization-recognition conflicts of same senses— the constitutive senses of TM — in the evaluative speech of two vestibular-essay correctors(CA and CB). These correctors, with their history of reading (grammar and Linguistic Textual), stress the concept of paraphrase taken by the vestibular instance for the correction of students’ essays. Such stress creates a dispute of speeches: the speech of knowledge (university policy) versus the speech of produce (neoliberal policy); the latter as reading policy that favors literal meanings, consensus. Because of all this, we question: what are the effects of senses produced in (and about) vestibular essays by the demand of determining of the saying there instituted? To answer this question, we build analysis from clippings of documents that regulate the vestibular exam (institutional texts) in our country and, also, analysis of two vestibular essays in which at times appear, at times not, according to the judgment of CA and CB of essays, paraphrases of TM statements of the essay. The analysis, in theory, punctuates effects of sense of the objectification process of the saying in vestibular, and primarily the rarefaction of legal-position subject-of-knowing by the current institution of the subject-of-making. Moreover, our work comprises affiliations of sense that relates to the subject-speech relationship in evaluative exercise of vestibular essays, on the question of authorship.