arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2407.02644

Example-Based Automatic Migration of Continuous Integration Systems

Abstract

Continuous Integration (CI) is a widely adopted practice for faster code change integration and testing. Developers often migrate between CI systems in pursuit of features like matrix building or better logging. However, this migration is effort intensive and error-prone owing to limited knowledge of the new CI system and its syntax. Moreover, these migrations require multiple iterations and significant time to achieve stability in the new CI system, and there is insufficient support for the automatic migration of CI configurations. To mitigate this, we propose a novel approach for CI system's automatic migration: CIMig. Our approach utilizes Example-Based mining, where it extracts translation rules and configuration patterns from existing migration examples, and employs them to reproduce this migration in new contexts. To empirically validate and evaluate our approach, we apply it to the migration between Travis CI and GitHub Actions. We gathered learnings from 1001 projects, and then applied them to migrate an evaluation set of 251 projects. This helped us perform a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of CIMig, and we contextualize our results by comparing them with those of the manual-rule-based GitHub Actions Importer. Furthermore, our tool generated files that were rated favorably by developers and saved them an average of 42.4 minutes over the manual migration of these same projects. Our learning-based approach is also more flexible, as proven by our ability to apply it to migrate GitHub Actions files to Travis, which GitHub Actions Importer can not do. We believe CIMig is the first approach of its kin to migrate CI systems and can be applied to other software configuration system migrations. Our replication package is available at [5].

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dhia Elhaq Rzig, Alaa Houerbi, Chungha Sung, Foyzul Hassan. 2024-07-02. Example-Based Automatic Migration of Continuous Integration Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02644

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE