arXiv subjects

Md Shamimur Rahman

Publications and source records attributed to Md Shamimur Rahman.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Understanding Maintenance and Support in a Community-Driven Scientific Workflow Ecosystem: A Cross-Space Study of Galaxy

Galaxy is a widely used, community-driven scientific workflow system whose sustainability depends on continuous maintenance across its software, tools, workflows, infrastructure, documentation, and user-support ecosystem. However, maintenance knowledge in Galaxy is distributed across development and community-support spaces, making it difficult to understand what is maintained, how maintenance artifacts are resolved, and how user-facing concerns connect to repository-level development. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of Galaxy using 11,762 GitHub issues, 52,203 pull requests, and 6,235 Community Forum discussions. We characterize maintenance and support concerns, examine factors associated with resolution outcomes and resolution time, and investigate explicit and candidate connections among maintenance artifacts across these spaces. Using BERTopic modeling, we identify nine issue topics, 14 pull-request topics, and 14 forum topics, revealing a maintenance landscape spanning workflow execution, data management, tools and dependencies, infrastructure, testing, scientific resources, documentation, and user support. Resolution analyses show that coordination, diagnostic, contributor, automation, and engagement characteristics exhibit different associations with whether artifacts are resolved and how quickly resolution occurs. We further find limited explicit traceability between development and support spaces: 97.77\% of 16,426 resolved explicit relationships occur within GitHub, while only 294 connect GitHub artifacts with Community Forum discussions, despite additional semantic and technical relatedness across these spaces. Together, these findings characterize Galaxy maintenance as a distributed ecosystem-level process and identify opportunities to improve diagnostic reporting, lifecycle-aware triage, cross-space traceability, and the reuse of community-support knowledge.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Does Order Matter? An Empirical Investigation into the Impact of File Ordering on Code Review Effectiveness

Modern code review is central to software quality, but its effectiveness depends on reviewer expertise, change characteristics, and how tools present changes. Most platforms display modified files alphabetically by default, although our prior work shows that developers find this ordering cognitively misaligned with how they understand multi-file pull requests. Whether these ordering-related attention patterns affect outcomes at scale remains unclear. We present a large-scale study of file ordering and review effectiveness, mining 330,343 multi-file pull requests and 756,814 file instances from 182 GitHub projects in five programming languages. We examine whether file position is associated with later bug-fixing changes, whether pull request size moderates this relationship, and whether reviewer attention, proxied by comments, aligns with latent bug outcomes. Results show statistically significant but modest associations among file position, pull request size, review activity, and latent bug likelihood. Latent bug rates rise from 56.7% at position 1 to 61.5% at position 30. Pull request size has a non-linear relationship with latent bug likelihood: pull requests of about ten files have the lowest risk, while very small and very large ones have elevated rates. Hurdle models show that attention is diluted as pull request size grows: each additional modified file reduces the odds of receiving any review comment by about 8.7%. These findings reveal an attention-effectiveness gap: visible review activity does not necessarily prevent defects. Alphabetical ordering is therefore not a neutral interface default, but a structural feature shaping attention allocation, review coverage, and confidence in review outcomes. We propose context-aware file ordering, dependency-aware grouping, risk-aware prioritization, and per-file coverage indicators to make review attention more visible and actionable.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Why Do Pull Requests Go Silent? Uncovering the Barriers to Contribution Completion in Open-Source Code Review

Pull requests (PRs) underpin pull-based software development by enabling distributed code review and collaborative contribution in open-source projects. Yet many become inactive before integration and are eventually abandoned or closed, wasting contributor and maintainer effort. Although prior work has examined PR abandonment and review delays, less is known about the contribution types, discussion-level barriers, and post-stalling collaboration patterns associated with inactivity. We investigate which PR types most often stall, why inactivity occurs from authors' and reviewers' perspectives, and how stalling relates to later contributor and reviewer engagement. We analyzed 14,234 stalled PRs and 164,562 review comments from 19 popular GitHub repositories using stale-bot workflows. An LLM-based voting classifier categorized PRs by contribution type, while quantitative analysis was combined with qualitative coding of general and inline review discussions. Feature-enhancement and issue-fixing PRs formed the largest share, together exceeding 77% of classified stalled PRs. General comments linked stalling mainly to communication and coordination breakdowns, including missing interaction, delayed feedback, and unclear follow-up. Inline comments showed that inactivity does not always reflect disengagement: many PRs were blocked by technical or dependency issues, including failing checks, configuration problems, compatibility concerns, and environment mismatches. Only 39.56% of contributors later submitted another PR, and reviewer re-engagement with the same contributors was approximately 21%. PR inactivity is a socio-technical coordination problem involving communication, technical readiness, review ownership, and automation practices. We recommend type-aware triage, clearer review feedback, explicit ownership of next actions, CI blocker management, and cause-aware stale-bot interventions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Maintenance and Support in Community-Driven Scientific Pipeline Ecosystems: A Cross-Platform Empirical Study of nf-core

Community-driven scientific pipeline ecosystems are increasingly important for reproducible data-intensive research, but their sustainability depends on more than workflow engines, templates, and testing infrastructure. It also depends on how communities maintain pipelines, integrate contributions, and support users across heterogeneous execution environments. This paper presents a cross-platform empirical study of maintenance and support in nf-core, a large ecosystem of standardized Nextflow pipelines. We analyze 15,760 GitHub issues, 35,411 GitHub pull requests, and 895 Seqera Community Forum discussions to examine what maintenance and support concerns arise, how they differ across artifact types, which factors are associated with resolution outcomes, and how problems and solutions flow between repository-centered and community-centered spaces. We find that issues primarily capture repository-level problem reporting and maintenance coordination; pull requests capture implementation, review, testing, dependency, and template-update work; and forum discussions capture user-facing support around execution failures, containers, cloud and HPC environments, MultiQC reporting, and Nextflow usage. Resolution outcomes are associated with actionability, coordination, and diagnostic evidence. Issue closure is linked to assignees, comments, milestones, bug labels, error mentions, and version information. Pull request integration varies by author role, automation type, draft status, checklists, linked issues, and review routing. Forum accepted answers are more likely when discussions include code blocks, sustained interaction, and concrete technical evidence, while cloud, HPC, and workflow-semantics questions are harder to resolve. Cross-platform analysis reveals strong repository-internal traceability within GitHub, but limited explicit linkage between forum discussions and repository artifacts.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Breaking the Alphabet: Rethinking File Ordering in Code Review

Effective code review is central to maintaining software quality, yet there is limited research about how the ordering of changed files in Pull Requests (PRs) influences review effectiveness. Most popular code review tools default to alphabetical ordering, favoring predictability over contextual relevance. While prior studies examined how file position shapes reviewer attention, it remains unclear how such ordering influences cognitive load and perceived review thoroughness. This study presents the first large-scale survey of 1,355 professional developers across 182 widely used open-source projects to investigate how file ordering impacts review behavior, comprehension, and perceived effectiveness. Our mixed-methods analysis reveals that only 10.2% of reviewers consider alphabetical ordering optimal, underscoring a cognitive misalignment in their interpretation of code changes. Although some developers appreciate its predictability, more than half (57.6%) report that it increases context switching, disrupts logical reasoning, and contributes to review fatigue, and 63.9% expressed concern that the default ordering may cause them to miss bugs. We further identify key challenges in multi-file reviews and elicit developers' expectations for improved tooling, including dependency-aware grouping and customizable file ordering (requested by 66% of reviewers). These findings highlight the need for reviewer-centric interface designs that better align tool behavior with human cognition.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Do Automatic Comment Generation Techniques Fall Short? Exploring the Influence of Method Dependencies on Code Understanding

Method-level comments are critical for improving code comprehension and supporting software maintenance. With advancements in large language models (LLMs), automated comment generation has become a major research focus. However, existing approaches often overlook method dependencies, where one method relies on or calls others, affecting comment quality and code understandability. This study investigates the prevalence and impact of dependent methods in software projects and introduces a dependency-aware approach for method-level comment generation. Analyzing a dataset of 10 popular Java GitHub projects, we found that dependent methods account for 69.25% of all methods and exhibit higher engagement and change proneness compared to independent methods. Across 448K dependent and 199K independent methods, we observed that state-of-the-art fine-tuned models (e.g., CodeT5+, CodeBERT) struggle to generate comprehensive comments for dependent methods, a trend also reflected in LLM-based approaches like ASAP. To address this, we propose HelpCOM, a novel dependency-aware technique that incorporates helper method information to improve comment clarity, comprehensiveness, and relevance. Experiments show that HelpCOM outperforms baseline methods by 5.6% to 50.4% across syntactic (e.g., BLEU), semantic (e.g., SentenceBERT), and LLM-based evaluation metrics. A survey of 156 software practitioners further confirms that HelpCOM significantly improves the comprehensibility of code involving dependent methods, highlighting its potential to enhance documentation, maintainability, and developer productivity in large-scale systems.

cs.SE↗