Developer experience · Empirical study

Supporting continuous integration by mashing-up software quality information

2014 Software Evolution Week - IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE) · 2014

Martin Brandtner, Emanuel Giger, Harald Gall

Original paper ↗

Summary

Study presents and evaluates combining software-quality information to support continuous integration.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Integrate quality signals into CI dashboards and pull-request workflows.

Reported result

What the study found

Study presents and evaluates combining software-quality information to support continuous integration.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Empirical study

Sample and setting

Abstract-only; sample/context details not available in the fetched metadata.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Only the DOI metadata/abstract was fetched; detailed methods, sample size, effect sizes, and external-validity constraints require full text.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.