Works for me! characterizing non-reproducible bug reports

Abstract

Bug repository systems have become an integral component of software development activities. Ideally, each bug report should help developers to find and fix a software fault. However, there is a subset of reported bugs that is not (easily) reproducible, on which developers spend considerable amounts of time and effort. We present an empirical analysis of non-reproducible bug reports to characterize their rate, nature, and root causes. We mine one industrial and five open-source bug repositories, resulting in 32K non-reproducible bug reports. We (1) compare properties of non-reproducible reports with their counterparts such as active time and number of authors, (2) investigate their life-cycle patterns, and (3) examine 120 Fixed non-reproducible reports. In addition, we qualitatively classify a set of randomly selected non-reproducible bug reports (1,643) into six common categories. Our results show that, on average, non-reproducible bug reports pertain to 17% of all bug reports, remain active three months longer than their counterparts, can be mainly (45%) classified as "Interbug Dependencies'', and 66% of Fixed non-reproducible reports were indeed reproduced and fixed.