Integrating Various Software Artifacts for Better LLM-based Bug Localization and Program Repair

LLMs have garnered considerable attention for their potential to streamline Automated Program Repair (APR). LLM-based approaches can either insert the correct code or directly generate patches when provided with buggy methods. However, most of LLM-based APR methods rely on a single type of software information, without fully leveraging different software artifacts. Despite this, many LLM-based approaches do not explore which specific types of information best assist in APR. Addressing this gap is crucial for advancing LLM-based APR techniques. We propose DEVLoRe to use issue content (description and message) and stack error traces to localize buggy methods, then rely on debug information in buggy methods and issue content and stack error to localize buggy lines and generate plausible patches which can pass all unit tests. The results show that while issue content is particularly effective in assisting LLMs with fault localization and program repair, different types of software artifacts complement each other. By incorporating different artifacts, DEVLoRe successfully locates 49.3% and 47.6% of single and non-single buggy methods and generates 56.0% and 14.5% plausible patches for the Defects4J v2.0 dataset, respectively. This outperforms current state-of-the-art APR methods. The source code and experimental results of this work for replication are available at https://github.com/XYZboom/DEVLoRe.

Copilot Refinement: Addressing Code Smells in Copilot-Generated Python Code

As one of the most popular dynamic languages, Python experiences a decrease in readability and maintainability when code smells are present. Recent advancements in Large Language Models have sparked growing interest in AI-enabled tools for both code generation and refactoring. GitHub Copilot is one such tool that has gained widespread usage. Copilot Chat, released on September 2023, functions as an interactive tool aims at facilitating natural language-powered coding. However, limited attention has been given to understanding code smells in Copilot-generated Python code and Copilot's ability to fix the code smells it generates. To this end, we built a dataset comprising 102 code smells in Copilot-generated Python code. Our aim is to first explore the occurrence of code smells in Copilot-generated Python code and then evaluate the effectiveness of Copilot in fixing these code smells employing different prompts. The results show that 8 out of 10 types of Python smells can be detected in Copilot-generated Python code, among which Multiply-Nested Container is the most common one. For these code smells, Copilot Chat achieves a highest fixing rate of 87.1%, showing promise in fixing Python code smells generated by Copilot itself. Besides, the effectiveness of Copilot Chat in fixing these smells can be improved with the provision of more detailed prompts. However, using Copilot Chat to fix these smells might introduce new code smells.