Debugging by asking questions about program output

ABSTRACT

One reason debugging is the most time-consuming part of software development is because developers struggle to map their questions about a program's behavior onto debugging tools' limited support for analyzing code. Interrogative debugging is a new debugging paradigm that allows developers to ask questions directly about their programs' output, helping them to more efficiently and accurately determine what parts of the system to understand. An interrogative debugging prototype called the Whyline is described, which has been shown to reduce debugging time by a factor of eight. Several extensions and generalizations to it are proposed, including plans for evaluating their effectiveness.

REFERENCES

• 1: Holger Cleve , Andreas Zeller, Locating causes of program failures, Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, p.342-351, May 15-21, 2005, St. Louis, MO, USA [doi>10.1145/1062455.1062522]
• 2: Andrew J. Ko , Brad A. Myers, Designing the whyline: a debugging interface for asking questions about program behavior, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.151-158, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985712]
• 3: Andrew J. Ko , Brad A. Myers , Htet Htet Aung, Six Learning Barriers in End-User Programming Systems, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing (VLHCC'04), p.199-206, September 26-29, 2004 [doi>10.1109/VLHCC.2004.47]
• 4: Andrew J. Ko , Htet Aung , Brad A. Myers, Eliciting design requirements for maintenance-oriented IDEs: a detailed study of corrective and perfective maintenance tasks, Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, p.126-135, May 15-21, 2005, St. Louis, MO, USA [doi>10.1145/1062455.1062492]
• 5: A. J. Ko and B. A. Myers, A Framework and Methodology for Studying the Causes of Software Errors in Programming Systems, JVLC, 16, 1-2, 41--84, 2005.
• 6: A. J. Ko, B. A. Myers, and D. H. Chau, A Linguistic Analysis of How People Describe Software Problems in Bug Reports, Submitted for publication 2006.
• 7: Thomas D. LaToza , Gina Venolia , Robert DeLine, Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits, Proceeding of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, May 20-28, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1134285.1134355]
• 8: Raimondas Lencevicius , Urs Hölzle , Ambuj K. Singh, Dynamic Query-Based Debugging of Object-Oriented Programs, Automated Software Engineering, v.10 n.1, p.39-74, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/A:1021816917888]
• 9: G. Tassey, The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing, National Institute of Standards and Technology RTI Project Number 7007.011, 2002.
• 10: Xiangyu Zhang , Rajiv Gupta, Cost effective dynamic program slicing, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2004 conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 09-11, 2004, Washington DC, USA

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.5 Testing and Debugging

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

General Terms:
Human Factors, Reliability

Keywords:
assumptions, debugging, direct manipulation, errors, faults, hypotheses, program comprehension, program understanding, questions, slicing, whyline