Perceptions, Expectations, and Challenges in Defect Prediction

Defect prediction has been an active research area for over four decades. Despite numerous studies on defect prediction, the potential value of defect prediction in practice remains unclear. To address this issue, we performed a mixed qualitative and quantitative study to investigate what practitioners think, behave and expect in contrast to research findings when it comes to defect prediction. We collected hypotheses from open-ended interviews and a literature review of defect prediction papers that were published at ICSE, ESEC/FSE, ASE, TSE and TOSEM in the last 6 years (2012-2017). We then conducted a validation survey where the hypotheses became statements or options of our survey questions. We received 395 responses from practitioners from over 33 countries across five continents. Some of our key findings include: 1) Over 90 percent of respondents are willing to adopt defect prediction techniques. 2) There exists a disconnect between practitioners' perceptions and well supported research evidence regarding defect density distribution and the relationship between file size and defectiveness. 3) 7.2 percent of the respondents reveal an inconsistency between their behavior and perception regarding defect prediction. 4) Defect prediction at the feature level is the most preferred level of granularity by practitioners. 5) During bug fixing, more than 40 percent of the respondents acknowledged that they would make a “work-around” fix rather than correct the actual error-causing code. Through a qualitative analysis of free-form text responses, we identified reasons why practitioners are reluctant to adopt defect prediction tools. We also noted features that practitioners expect defect prediction tools to deliver. Based on our findings, we highlight future research directions and provide recommendations for practitioners.