Search

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the increasing scale and complexity of software products, software maintenance especially on bug resolution has become a challenging task. Generally in large-scale software programs, developers depend on software artifacts (e.g., bug report, source code and change history) in bug repositories to complete the bug resolution task. However, a mountain of submitted bug reports every day increase the developers' workload. Therefore, 'How to effectively resolve software defects by utilizing software artifacts?' becomes a research hotspot in software maintenance. Considerable studies have been done on bug resolution by using multi-techniques, which cover data mining, machine learning and natural language processing. In this paper, we present a literature survey on tasks, challenges and future directions of bug resolution in software maintenance process. Our investigation concerns the most important phases in bug resolution, including bug understanding, bug triage and bug fixing. Moreover, we present the advantages and disadvantages of each study. Finally, based on the investigation and comparison results, we propose the future research directions of bug resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investing in documenting your bioinformatics software well can increase its impact and save your time. To maximize the effectiveness of your documentation, we suggest following a few guidelines we propose here. We recommend providing multiple avenues for users to use your research software, including a navigable HTML interface with a quick start, useful help messages with detailed explanation and thorough examples for each feature of your software. By following these guidelines, you can assure that your hard work maximally benefits yourself and others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]