In this study, we examine the interactions between developers and ChatGPT in the context of code refactoring. Our goal is to gain insights into how developers articulate their refactoring needs and how ChatGPT addresses those needs. Through our analysis of 17,913 ChatGPT prompts and responses, we have discovered that developers often copy and paste code fragments that require refactoring along with textual descriptions of their desired changes. While ChatGPT provides informative suggestions for refactorings, its understanding of the broader context of the codebase is limited. This can lead to potential issues such as missing dependencies and codependencies. Additionally, developers may encounter challenges with suggested code changes including compiler errors and test failures resulting from ChatGPT-provided solutions. Our research also highlights the importance of high-quality prompts in eliciting effective responses from ChatGPT. We have found that the model's performance is closely tied to the quality of its training data. For non-urgent issues like code style improvements or adding comments, insightful suggestions are offered by ChatGPT. However, complexities arise when ChatGPT misunderstands or becomes confused by reported code fragments or incomplete inputs. By identifying common patterns and challenges in these conversations between developers and AI models like ChatGPT, researchers and developers can work towards enhancing its capabilities to better meet developer needs. Furthermore, our exploration has uncovered variability in learning settings during refactoring conversations between developers and ChatGPT. Some developers rely on zero-shot learning by using the model's generative ability to propose fixes for unseen data based on prior training. Others opt for few-shot learning by providing code fragments and checking for design antipatterns. Through manual inspection of GitHub repositories to identify refactoring documentation patterns represented as keywords or phrases in developer-ChatGPT conversations, we have compiled a list of 43 such patterns. Overall, our findings shed light on the dynamics between developers and AI models like ChatGPT in the realm of code refactoring. By understanding these interactions more deeply, we can pave the way for improving model performance, tool development, and best practices in software engineering.
- - Study focuses on interactions between developers and ChatGPT in code refactoring context
- - Developers often provide code fragments and textual descriptions for refactoring needs
- - ChatGPT offers informative suggestions but has limited understanding of broader codebase context
- - Challenges can arise from missing dependencies, codependencies, compiler errors, and test failures
- - Quality of prompts influences ChatGPT's performance; high-quality prompts yield effective responses
- - Model performs well for non-urgent issues like code style improvements or adding comments
- - Issues arise when ChatGPT misunderstands or gets confused by reported code fragments or incomplete inputs
- - Different learning settings observed: zero-shot learning vs. few-shot learning during refactoring conversations
- - Manual inspection of GitHub repositories reveals 43 refactoring documentation patterns in developer-ChatGPT conversations
- - Findings contribute to understanding dynamics between developers and AI models in code refactoring, aiming to enhance model capabilities and software engineering best practices
Summary- The study looks at how developers and ChatGPT interact when fixing code.
- Developers give pieces of code and explanations for what needs to be fixed.
- ChatGPT gives helpful suggestions but doesn't fully understand all the code details.
- Problems can happen due to missing parts, errors, or failed tests in the code.
- Good instructions help ChatGPT work better, especially for small improvements.
Definitions1. Code refactoring: Making changes to improve the structure or readability of code without changing its external behavior.
2. Dependencies: Parts of code that rely on other parts to work correctly.
3. Compiler errors: Mistakes in the code that prevent it from being turned into a working program.
4. Test failures: Situations where automated tests show that the code doesn't work as expected.
5. Prompt quality: How clear and useful the instructions given are for ChatGPT to understand and respond accurately.
Introduction
In the world of software development, code refactoring is a crucial process that involves improving the structure and design of existing code without changing its functionality. This practice helps developers maintain and enhance their codebase, making it more efficient, readable, and maintainable. However, this task can be time-consuming and challenging for developers to perform manually. To address this issue, researchers have explored the use of AI models like ChatGPT (Chatbot-based Generative Pre-trained Transformer) to assist with code refactoring.
In this research paper, titled "Interactions between Developers and ChatGPT in Code Refactoring Conversations," the authors examine how developers interact with ChatGPT in the context of code refactoring. Their goal is to gain insights into how developers articulate their refactoring needs and how ChatGPT addresses those needs. Through their analysis of 17,913 ChatGPT prompts and responses from various GitHub repositories, they have uncovered valuable information about these interactions.
Methodology
To conduct their study, the authors collected data from GitHub repositories containing conversations between developers and ChatGPT regarding code refactoring. They then analyzed these conversations using natural language processing techniques to identify patterns in developer requests and model responses.
Findings
The study's findings reveal that developers often copy and paste code fragments that require refactoring along with textual descriptions of their desired changes when interacting with ChatGPT. While ChatGPT provides informative suggestions for refactorings based on these inputs, its understanding of the broader context of the codebase is limited. This limitation can lead to potential issues such as missing dependencies or co-dependencies in suggested solutions.
Moreover, some challenges may arise when implementing suggested changes from ChatGPT due to compiler errors or test failures resulting from incomplete inputs or misunderstandings by the model. The quality of prompts also plays a significant role in eliciting effective responses from ChatGPT; thus high-quality training data is essential for the model's performance.
The study also highlights the variability in learning settings during refactoring conversations between developers and ChatGPT. Some developers rely on zero-shot learning, where they use the model's generative ability to propose fixes for unseen data based on prior training. Others opt for few-shot learning by providing code fragments and checking for design antipatterns.
Through manual inspection of GitHub repositories, the authors identified 43 common patterns or keywords used in developer-ChatGPT conversations related to code refactoring. These patterns can help improve ChatGPT's capabilities and guide researchers and developers in developing better tools and best practices for software engineering.
Conclusion
Overall, this research sheds light on the dynamics between developers and AI models like ChatGPT in the context of code refactoring. It provides valuable insights into how these interactions take place, challenges that may arise, and potential areas for improvement. By understanding these interactions more deeply, researchers can work towards enhancing ChatGPT's capabilities to better meet developer needs.
This study also emphasizes the importance of high-quality prompts in eliciting effective responses from ChatGPT. Developers should be mindful of providing complete inputs with clear descriptions when requesting refactorings from the model.
In conclusion, this research contributes to our understanding of how AI models like ChatGPT can assist with code refactoring tasks while highlighting areas for improvement. With further advancements in this field, we can expect to see more efficient and effective collaboration between developers and AI models in software development processes.