Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Joorabchi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: