• Quick Links
• 1. Framework
• -- Overview
• -- Tools
• -- Decision tree
• 2. Apps and Bug Reports
• 3. Demonstration Video
• 4. Study Respones
• 5. Results
• 6. Authors

Auto-Completing Bug Reports for Android Applications - FSE 2015 Online Appendix

This web page is a companion to our FSE 2015 paper entitled "Auto-Completing Bug Reports for Android Applications".

1. Framework: FUSION can be accesed here

> Overview of FUSION

*Image available also as a PDF

> Tools

Tools used in particular for static analysis are:

• Apktool
• Dex2jar
• jd-cmd decompiler
• srcML

Tools used in particular for dynamic analysis are:

• Android Debug Bridge (adb)
• HierarchyViewer
• UIAutomator

---

> Decision tree

The back-end predicts the auto-complete information using decision tree logic.

2. Apps and Bug Reports

APP	Bug ID	Description	Min # of Steps	Bug Type
A Time Tracker	24	Dialog box is displayed three times in error.	3	GDE
Aarddict	106	Scroll Position of previous pages is incorrect.	4-5	GDE
ACV	11	App Crashes when long pressing on sdcard folder.	5	C
Car report	43	Wrong information is displayed if two of the same values are entered subsequently	10	DIC
Document Viewer	48	Go To Page \# number requires two entries before it works	4	NE
DroidWeight	38	Weight graph has incorrectly displayed digits	7	GDE
Eshotroid	2	Bus time page never loads.	10	GDE/NE
GnuCash	256	Selecting from autocomplete suggestion doesn't allow modification of value	10	DIC
GnuCash	247	Cannot change a previously entered withdrawal to a deposit.	10	DIC
Mileage	31	Comment Not Displayed.	5	GDE/DIC
NetMBuddy	3	Some YouTube videos do not play.	4	GDE/NE
Notepad	23	Crash on trying to send note.	6	C
OI Notepad	187	Encrypted notes are sorted in random when they should be ordered alphabetically	10	GDE/DIC
Olam	2	App Crashes when searching for word with apostrophe or just a "space" character	3	C
QuickDic	85	Enter key does not hide keyboard	5	GDE

3. Demonstration Video

In the following we present a demonstration video of FUSION.

4. Study Respones

• Study 1 responses - xls
• Study 2 responses - xls
• Study quantitative results - xlsx

5. Results

RQ1 - Is FUSION easier to use for reporting bugs than traditional bug tracking systems?

• While reporter’s generally felt that the opportunity to enter extra information in a bug report using FUSION increased the quality of their reports, inexperienced users would have preferred a simpler web UI.

RQ2 - Is FUSION easier to use for reproducing bugs than traditional bug tracking systems?

Answers to the UX-related questions in RQ2.


According to usability scores, participants generally preferred FUSION over the original bug reports, but generally preferred GCIT to FUSION by a small margin. The biggest reporter complaint regarding FUSION was the organization of information in the report.

RQ3 - Do bug reports generated with FUSION allow for faster bug reproduction as compared to reports submitted using traditional bug tracking systems?

Percentage of bug reports reproduced by each participant.


Developers using FUSION are able to reproduce more bugs compared to traditional bug tracking systems such as the GCIT.

RQ4 - Do developers using FUSION reproduce more bugs as compared to using traditional bug tracking systems?

Individual bug reproduction time.


Bug reports generated with FUSION do not allow for faster reproduction of bugs compared bug reports generated using traditional bug tracking systems such as the GCIT.

6. Authors

• Kevin Moran - The College of William and Mary, VA, USA.
  E-mail: kpmoran at cs dot wm
dot edu
• Mario Linares-Vásquez - The College of William and Mary, VA, USA.
  E-mail: mlinarev at cs dot wm
dot edu
• Carlos Bernal-Cárdenas - The College of William and Mary, VA, USA.
  E-mail: cebernal at cs dot wm
dot edu
• Denys Poshyvanyk - The College of William and Mary.
  E-mail: denys at cs dot wm dot edu