Standard

5W+1H static analysis report quality measure. / Menshchikov, Maxim; Lepikhin, Timur.

в: Communications in Computer and Information Science, Том 779, 2018, стр. 114-126.

Результаты исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданиях › статья › Рецензирование

Harvard

Menshchikov, M & Lepikhin, T 2018, '5W+1H static analysis report quality measure', Communications in Computer and Information Science, Том. 779, стр. 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71734-0_10

APA

Menshchikov, M., & Lepikhin, T. (2018). 5W+1H static analysis report quality measure. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 779, 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71734-0_10

Vancouver

Menshchikov M, Lepikhin T. 5W+1H static analysis report quality measure. Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2018;779:114-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71734-0_10

Author

Menshchikov, Maxim ; Lepikhin, Timur. / 5W+1H static analysis report quality measure. в: Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2018 ; Том 779. стр. 114-126.

BibTeX

@article{d73b94ad5b69438ab8d098a09be250f1,
title = "5W+1H static analysis report quality measure",
abstract = "Modern development best practices rank static analysis quite high in a list of quality assurance methods. Static analyzers indicate errors found and help improve software quality. However, the quality of reports is merely evaluated, if done at all. In this paper we generalize analyzer output messages and explore ways to improve reliability of comparison results. We introduce informational value as a measure of report quality with respect to 5Ws (What, When, Where, Who, Why) and 1H (How To Fix) questions, formulate and verify a hypothesis about its independence on generic quality measures, suggest a methodology to include it into static analysis benchmarking and present our observations after testing, which might help tool developers choose the direction towards more understandable reports.",
keywords = "Informational value, Report quality measure, Static analysis, Understandability of reports",
author = "Maxim Menshchikov and Timur Lepikhin",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-71734-0_10",
language = "English",
volume = "779",
pages = "114--126",
journal = "Communications in Computer and Information Science",
issn = "1865-0929",
publisher = "Springer Nature",
note = "International Conference on Tools and Methods of Program Analysis, TMPA 2017 ; Conference date: 02-03-2017 Through 03-03-2017",
url = "https://tmpaconf.org/ru/past-events/tmpa-2017/about-2017-ru",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - 5W+1H static analysis report quality measure

AU - Menshchikov, Maxim

AU - Lepikhin, Timur

N1 - Conference code: 4

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Modern development best practices rank static analysis quite high in a list of quality assurance methods. Static analyzers indicate errors found and help improve software quality. However, the quality of reports is merely evaluated, if done at all. In this paper we generalize analyzer output messages and explore ways to improve reliability of comparison results. We introduce informational value as a measure of report quality with respect to 5Ws (What, When, Where, Who, Why) and 1H (How To Fix) questions, formulate and verify a hypothesis about its independence on generic quality measures, suggest a methodology to include it into static analysis benchmarking and present our observations after testing, which might help tool developers choose the direction towards more understandable reports.

AB - Modern development best practices rank static analysis quite high in a list of quality assurance methods. Static analyzers indicate errors found and help improve software quality. However, the quality of reports is merely evaluated, if done at all. In this paper we generalize analyzer output messages and explore ways to improve reliability of comparison results. We introduce informational value as a measure of report quality with respect to 5Ws (What, When, Where, Who, Why) and 1H (How To Fix) questions, formulate and verify a hypothesis about its independence on generic quality measures, suggest a methodology to include it into static analysis benchmarking and present our observations after testing, which might help tool developers choose the direction towards more understandable reports.

KW - Informational value

KW - Report quality measure

KW - Static analysis

KW - Understandability of reports

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040256491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-71734-0_10

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-71734-0_10

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85040256491

VL - 779

SP - 114

EP - 126

JO - Communications in Computer and Information Science

JF - Communications in Computer and Information Science

SN - 1865-0929

T2 - International Conference on Tools and Methods of Program Analysis

Y2 - 2 March 2017 through 3 March 2017

ER -

ID: 19704500