Update from Hell: Can Coding Agents Survive Hidden Breakage in Dependency Upgrades?

Zijian Luo; Runzhi He; Pengfei Gao; Yu Kang; Zeqi Lin; Minghua Ma; Qingwei Lin; Saravan Rajmohan; Yongqiang Tian

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.30300

Update from Hell: Can Coding Agents Survive Hidden Breakage in Dependency Upgrades?

Zijian Luo·Runzhi He·Pengfei Gao·Yu Kang·Zeqi Lin·Minghua Ma·Qingwei Lin·Saravan Rajmohan·Yongqiang Tian

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Modern software systems rely heavily on third-party dependencies, but upgrading those dependencies remains a costly maintenance activity. Dependency upgrades do not always preserve the function signatures, type systems, APIs, or runtime semantics assumed by existing code. Consequently, developers often need to perform source code adaptations to accommodate dependency-induced changes. However, such code-level changes are often not explicitly communicated to project maintainers, posing a significant challenge to software reliability. Meanwhile, coding agents have emerged as a new form of software development tool and are increasingly adopted by developers due to their automation capabilities. In this paper, we introduce DEPBENCH, a benchmark consisting of 203 real-world dependency-upgrade tasks across five package ecosystems spanning five language communities, each involving hidden code-level changes that require source code adaptation. We evaluate mainstream coding agents on DEPBENCH. The best completed configuration solves only 104/203 tasks (51.2%), with substantial variation across agent harnesses, models, and ecosystems, highlighting an important gap between current agent capabilities and real-world software maintenance needs.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Zijian Luo, Runzhi He, Pengfei Gao, Yu Kang, Zeqi Lin, Minghua Ma, Qingwei Lin, Saravan Rajmohan, Yongqiang Tian. 2026-08-31. Update from Hell: Can Coding Agents Survive Hidden Breakage in Dependency Upgrades?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30300

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

Discover connections

cs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE↗