Improving students’ programming quality with the continuous inspection process: a social coding perspective

Abstract

College students majoring in computer science and software engineering need to master skills for highquality programming. However, rich research has shown that both the teaching and learning of high-quality programming are challenging and deficient in most college education systems. Recently, the continuous inspection paradigm has been widely used by developers on social coding sites (e.g., GitHub) as an important method to ensure the internal quality of massive code contributions. This paper presents a case where continuous inspection is introduced into the classroom setting to improve students’ programming quality. In the study, we first designed a specific continuous inspection process for students’ collaborative projects and built an execution environment for the process. We then conducted a controlled experiment with 48 students from the same course during two school years to evaluate how the process affects their programming quality. Our results show that continuous inspection can help students in identifying their bad coding habits, mastering a set of good coding rules and significantly reducing the density of code quality issues introduced in the code. Furthermore,we describe the lessons learned during the study and propose ideas to replicate and improve the process and its execution platform.

Keywords

continuous inspection / programming quality / SonarQube

References

[1] Salman I. Students versus professionals as experiment subjects: an investigation on the effectiveness of TDD on code quality. Master’s Thesis, University Oulu, 2014

[2] Breuker D M, Derriks J, Brunekreef J. Measuring static quality of student code. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2011, 13–17

[3] Feldman Y A. Teaching quality object-oriented programming. Technology on Educational Resources in Computing, 2005, 5(1): 1

[4] Carver J C, Kraft N A. Evaluating the testing ability of senior-level computer science students. In: Proceedings of IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. 2011, 169–178

[5] Nawahdah M, Taji D. Investigating students’ behavior and code quality when applying pair-programming as a teaching technique in a middle eastern society. In: Proceedings of IEEEGlobal Engineering Education Conference. 2016, 32–39

[6] Radermacher A D. Evaluating the gap between the skills and abilities of senior undergraduate computer science students and the expectations of industry. North Dakota State University, Thesis, 2012

[7] Begel A, Simon B. Struggles of new college graduates in their first software development job. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 2008, 40(1): 226–230

[8] Robins A, Rountree J, Rountree N. Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 2003, 13(2): 137–172

[9] Higgins C A, Gray G, Symeonidis P, Tsintsifas A. Automated assessment and experiences of teaching programming. Technology on Educational Resources in Computing, 2005, 5(3): 5

[10] Piaget J. Psychology and Epistemology: Towards A Theory of Knowledge. Markham: Penguin Books Canada, 1977

[11] Chen W K, Tu P Y. Grading code quality of programming assignments based on bad smells. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. 2011, 559

[12] Radermacher A, Walia G, Knudson D. Investigating the skill gap between graduating students and industry expectations. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion. 2014, 291–300

[13] McConnell S. Code Complete. Pearson Education, 2004

[14] ISO. IEC25010: 2011 systems and software engineering–systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (square)–system and software quality models. International Organization for Standardization. 2011, 34–35

[15] Gousios G, Pinzger M, Deursen A V. An exploratory study of the pullbased software development model. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2014, 345–355

[16] Dabbish L, Stuart C, Tsay J, Herbsleb J. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2012, 1277–1286

[17] Lu Y, Mao X J, Li Z D, Zhang Y, Wang T, Yin G. Does the role matter? an investigation of the code quality of casual contributors in GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 2016, 49–56

[18] Yu Y, Vasilescu B, Wang H M, Filkov V, Devanbu P. Initial and eventual software quality relating to continuous integration in GitHub. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00521

[19] Ebbinghaus H. Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. Annals of Neurosciences, 2013, 20(4): 155

[20] Wang H M, Yin G, Li X, Li X. TRUSTIE: A Software Development Platform for Crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015

[21] Wong C P, Xiong Y F, Zhang H Y, Hao D. Boosting bug-report-oriented fault localization with segmentation and stack-trace analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. 2014, 181–190

[22] Tonella P, Abebe S L. Code quality from the programmer’s perspective. In: Proceedings of XII Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research. 2008

[23] Zhang H, Ali B M. Systematic reviews in software engineering: an empirical investigation. Information and Software Technology, 2013, 55(7): 1341–1354

[24] Lu Y, Mao X J, Li Z D, Zhang Y, Wang T, Yin G. Internal quality assurance for external contributions in GitHub: an empirical investigation. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 2018, 30(4): e1918

[25] Akinola O S. An empirical comparative analysis of programming effort, bugs incurrence and code quality between solo and pair programmers. Middle East Technology Scientific Research, 2014, 21(12): 2231–2237

[26] Braught G, Wahls T, Eby L M. The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 2011, 11(1): 2

[27] Wang Y Q, Li Y J, Collins M, Liu P J. Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants. In: Proceedings of SigCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 2008, 107–111

[28] Cunha A D D, Greathead D. Does personality matter?: an analysis of code-review ability. Communications of the ACM, 2007, 50(5): 109–112

[29] Hundhausen C, Agrawal A, Fairbrother D, Trevisan M. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study. ACM SIGCSE Bulletion, 2009, 41(1): 291–295

[30] Hüttermann M. DevOps for Developers. Apress, 2012

[31] Waller J, Ehmke N C, Hasselbring W. Including performance benchmarks into continuous integration to enable devops. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2015, 40(2): 1–4

[32] Vasilescu B, Yu Y, Wang H M, Devanbu P, Filkov V. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 2015, 805–816

[33] Bowyer J, Hughes J. Assessing undergraduate experience of continuous integration and test-driven development. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2006, 691–694

[34] Heckman S, King J. Developing software engineering skills using real tools for automated grading. In: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 2018, 794–799

[35] Gaudin O, Sonar Source. Continuous inspection: a paradigm shift in software quality management. Technical Report, SonarSource S.A., Switzerland, 2013

[36] Merson P, Yoder J W, Guerra E M, Aguiar A. Continuous inspection: a pattern for keeping your code healthy and aligned to the architecture. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. 2014

[37] Barroca L, Sharp H, Salah D, Taylor K, Gregory Peggy. Bridging the gap between research and agile practice: an evolutionary model. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2018, 9(2): 323–334

[38] Krusche S, Berisha M, Bruegge B. Teaching code review management using branch based workflows. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion. 2016, 384–393

[39] Jick T D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24(4): 602–611

[40] Letouzey J L. The SQALE method definition document. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt. 2012, 31–36

[41] Zagalsky A, Feliciano J, Storey M A, Zhao Y Y, Wang W L. The emergence of GitHub as a collaborative platform for education. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2015, 1906–1917

[42] Lu Y, Mao X J, Li Z D. Assessing software maintainability based on class diagram design: a preliminary case study. Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, 2016, 4(1): 53–58

[43] Chess B, McGraw G. Static analysis for security. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2004, 2(6): 76–79

[44] Gousios G, Storey M A, Bacchelli A. Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: the contributor’s perspective. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2016, 285–296

[45] Mengel S A, Yerramilli V. A case study of the static analysis of the quality of novice student programs. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 1999, 31(1): 78–82

[46] Kim S H, Pan K, Whitehead E E J. Memories of bug fixes. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. 2006, 35–45

[47] Beck K. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2000

[48] Mcdowell C, Werner L, Bullock H, Fernald J. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communication of the ACM, 2006, 49(8): 91

[49] Mcdowell C, Werner L, Bullock H E, Fernald J. The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2003, 602–603

[50] Mcdowell C, Werner L, Bullock H. The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 2002, 34(1): 38–42

[51] Nagoya F, Liu S Y, Chen Y T. A tool and case study for specificationbased program review. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. 2005, 375–380

[52] Campbell D T, Stanley J C, Lees Gage N. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 1963, 5: 171–246

[53] Sigelaman L. Question-order effects on presidential popularity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1981, 45(2): 199–207

[54] Zheng J, Williams L, Nagappan N, Snipes W, Hudepohl J P, Vouk M A. On the value of static analysis for fault detection in software. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 2006, 32(4): 240–253

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2019 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature