Informatica

One important task in this discipline is software comprehension, since software must be sufficiently understood before it can be properly modified and evolved. Actually, some authors argue that around 60% of software engineering effort is about software comprehension (Cornelissen et al., 2009). Researchers in this area use different methods, artifacts and tools to analyse the source code and extract relevant knowledge (Chen et al., 2016; Chahal and Saini, 2016). The analysis and understanding of software are complicated, alongside the handling of the different versions of the software and other information of the software development projects. To mitigate such problem, there are systems for controlling those versions, servers, and code repositories, and other software artifacts in general.

These kinds of systems have been adopted by the industry and are used by a significant number of open source projects (Joy et al., 2018). Thereby, such systems have become an important source of technical and social information about software development that is used to identify conventions, patterns, artifacts, etc. made by software development teams to understand and improve the quality of software (Del Carpio, 2017). However, the repository platforms only allow searches on projects, so they do not allow any analysis or value-added information to support the decision-making process (Hidalgo Suarez et al., 2018). Researchers are interested in analysing these code repositories for information on different software issues (e.g. quality, defects, effort estimation, cloning, evolutionary patterns, etc.). Analysing code repositories is a difficult task that requires certain knowledge on how to access, gather, aggregate and analyse the vast amount of data in code repositories (Dyer et al., 2015). Our research focuses on performing an SMS to know what kind of research has been done on the analysis of code repositories and to know what research areas have not been covered yet.

This section describes some secondary studies (e.g. SMS, SLR and surveys) about the analysis of code repositories. To the best of our knowledge, in the relevant literature there are few SLR or SMS studies that tackle analysis of code repositories. We can find some works whose aim is to provide the state of the art in the field of code repository analysis.

In this line, De Farias et al. (2016), Siddiqui and Ahmad (2018) and Costa and Murta (2013), present reviews to investigate the different approaches of Mining Software Repositories (MSR), showing they are used for many purposes, mainly for understanding the defects, analysing the contribution and behaviour of developers, and understanding the evolution of software. In addition, the authors strive to discover the problems encountered during the development of software projects and the role of mining software repositories in solving those problems. A comparative study of data mining tools and techniques for extracting software repositories is also presented, one of these tools being VCS. These results can help practitioners and researchers to better understand and overcome version control system problems, and to devise more effective solutions to improve version control in a distributed environment. Zolkifli et al. (2018) discusses the background and work related to VCS that has been studied by researchers. The purpose of this document is to convey the knowledge and ideas that have been established in VCS. It is also important to understand the approaches to VCS, as different approaches will affect the software development process differently. Kagdi et al. (2007) presents a study on approaches to MSRs that includes sources such as information stored in VCS, error tracking requirements/systems, and communication files. The study provides a taxonomy of software repositories in the context of the evolution of software, which supports the development of tools, methods and processes to understand the evolution of software. In addition, Demeyer et al. (2013) provides an analysis of the MSR conference. This paper reports on technologies that are obsolete or emerging and current research methods for the date (2013) the study was conducted. In conclusion, the research focuses on the change and evolution of software, along with a few studies for the industry. The study already mentions the code repositories and their importance as an important source of data for software analysis.

This work focuses on the concepts presented in Section 2.1. Consequently, the research efforts (Costa and Murta, 2013; De Farias et al., 2016; Siddiqui and Ahmad, 2018; Zolkifli et al., 2018) are at the coarse-grained level where a generalized taxonomy of the different types of information analysed in software repositories is performed along with their respective tools and techniques for information extraction. This allows to have a general vision of the different code repositories, but it does not provide details of the information that is obtained from these software repositories. For example, what is the resulting information used for? What problems does it solve? and other questions linked to the maintenance and evolution of the software.

Other studies such as Amann et al. (2015) and Güemes-Peña et al. (2018), show that the main objectives of software repositories are mainly productivity objectives, such as identifying the impacts of change, as well as making development more effective. Other objectives are to support quality assurance, for example, by finding and predicting errors, or by detecting code clones and calculating the testing effort. Management objectives, such as estimating change effort, understanding human factors, or understanding processes, are also pursued, but in far fewer studies. In addition, in their research on the use of software repositories, they have identified the most relevant problems in the software development community: software degradation, dependencies between exchanges, error prediction and developer interaction. They pointed out that repositories record large volumes of data, although standard data collection tools are not available to extract specific data from the repositories. Most of the data sets came from open source projects with few contributions from industry participants.

In general, those studies highlight the challenge for researchers of analysing code repositories, as they need to deal with various software engineering artifacts, data sources, consider the human factor as a primary component, understand the areas of research and identify their current objectives, gaps and deficiencies, as well as to understand how to better evaluate their purposes and results.

GitHub is the main tool for software repositories with 79 million repositories (Borges and Tulio Valente, 2018). Cosentino et al. (2017), Kalliamvakou et al. (2016) analysed it through a systematic mapping of software development with GitHub, in which most of the work was focused on the interaction around the tasks related to coding and project communities. Some concerns were also identified about the reliability of these results because, in general, the proposal used small data sets and poor sampling techniques, employed a narrow range of methodologies and/or was difficult to understand. They also documented the results of an empirical study aimed at understanding the characteristics of software repositories such as GitHub; their results indicate that while GitHub is a rich source of data on software development, the use of GitHub for research purposes should take into account several potential hazards. Some potential dangers are manifested in relation to repository activity; there should also be a call for quantitative studies to be complemented by qualitative data. There are gaps in the data that may jeopardize the conclusions of any rigorous study. This software repository is a unique resource and continues to grow at a rapid rate; its users are finding innovative ways to use it and it will continue to be an attractive source for research in software engineering.

Therefore, in this section we can observe that SLRs, SMS, survey of the literature and text mining obtain information from MSR conferences or focus directly on the analysis of software repositories, with the purpose of knowing the software development process and understanding the evolution of software (Table 1). However, those studies do not analyse in detail other subsets that are a part of software repositories, such as code repositories, which require a greater emphasis of studies in terms of information obtained, tools, techniques, methodologies or information derived from these analyses, which will be identified in this study.

Consequently, in order to understand and identify the information obtained, tools, techniques and utilization of the software repository and its different research topics that remain to be covered, we perform an SMS that provides us with a complete view through different perspectives and does not follow a systematic process of document selection and data extraction, but rather a complete analysis validating the different approaches and proposals of various researchers.

In this phase, we define a set of activities for SMS which are the following: research questions, search process, study selection procedure, quality assessment, data extraction and taxonomy and collection methods.

The execution of our SMS was carried out by three researchers, with time of 9 months to finish. The systematic mapping study schedule began with protocol development and improvement, extraction, and elimination of duplicates. This was followed by study selection by analysing the title, abstract and keywords. Another iteration applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, all the primary studies selected in this step were downloaded. The selection process is determined by the full text, we apply taxonomy, classification, and quality assessment. Conflict resolution is carried out by focus group sessions. And finally, report of all the steps executed and the activities carried out throughout the study was generated. In Figure 2 we can see a summary of the search and selection process of primary studies and their respective results.

Altogether, we obtained 3755 publications as a result of the automatic search in the digital libraries. As a first step, we eliminated duplicates (502 studies) obtaining a total of 3409 studies. Then, applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria, we selected 732 publications. As the last one that corresponds to the complete reading of the study, we selected 236 studies. Appendix C shows the list of the primary studies we selected. We subsequently conducted the extraction of data, classification and synthesis with these 236 primary studies. It is possible to view the tables obtained from the data extraction, classification and synthesis online at https://GitHub.com/jaimepsayago/SMS.

Table 7 shows the classification of categories made for the first research question. The selected studies exhibit different artifacts that require some kind of grouping. For this purpose, we have created a taxonomy for code repositories. For this taxonomy, we take as a basis the taxonomy provided in Dit et al. (2013) as well as other similar studies (Kagdi et al., 2007; Cavalcanti et al., 2014). The 14 possible inputs considered for RQ1 are grouped and evaluated as shown in Table 7.

Table 7 shows how the selected primary studies are distributed in relation to (RQ1), the number of studies for each category and the percentage distribution. We observed that the proposed distribution includes the different components present in a code repository (commits, pulls, branches, etc.). We identified several studies that combine more than one source of data to achieve their analysis of the code repository but do not reach a significant number within our research (less than 2%). For the analysis of code repositories are the commits; commit messages is the most recurrent input employed in selected studies, with 115 studies in total (34%). This means the type of information most used as input, contributors, commit history, etc. In particular, the most relevant studies of this category focus on the use of repository commits that record changes in the source code made by developers.

Some of the studies in this category focus on taking as the main information the commitments to follow up on issues that may occur in the project or with the developers, and that represent a challenge when executing software maintenance. Thus, the study 115 (Jarczyk et al., 2017), the closing of issues (errors and characteristics) is studied using it as main information for the analysis (commits) in software projects, which allows a better understanding of the factors that affect the completion rates of issues in software projects. As for example in the study 130 (Kagdi1 et al., 2014), the authors propose to use commits in repositories that record changes to source code submitted by developers to version control systems. This approach consists of recommending a classified list of expert developers to assist in the execution of software change requests.

The second most common entry with 90 studies (26%) (see Table 7) is the input “source code” which represents a huge body of software and related information for researchers who are interested in analysing different properties related to the source code of software. Specifically, source code allows a meaningful understanding of software development artifacts and processes (Dyer et al., 2015). For example, the study 187 (Negara et al., 2014) provides an approach that previously identifies unknown frequent code change patterns of a sequence of fine-grained code changes and that allows understanding the evolution of the code.

Other studies in this category also focus on analysing the repository code to investigate the development process. The study 80 (Finlay et al., 2014) takes as main information (input) the code and comments to obtain metrics to relate them to the development effort.

The third most common entry is the input “information repository” with 23 studies (7%) (see Table 7), it mainly groups historical data, dataset repository and historical code repository. These studies focus on obtaining the general information of the repository order to obtain useful knowledge for the development and maintenance of the software.

In this category, we found the study 232 (Wu et al., 2014) that takes the information from the code repository to analyse social characteristics of collaboration between developers. The authors focus on demonstrating that code repositories are a part of a broad ecosystem of developer interactions. Another example is the study 191 (Novielli et al., 2018) that takes the information from the code repository to analyse the emotions of developers, applying sentiment analysis to the content of communication traces left in collaborative development environments.

The remaining categories are as follows. The next input is the “issues” category with 19 studies (6%) (see Table 7), the issues are processed for the resolution of the problem or question of something specific. The fifth input is the “comments” category with 16 studies (5%) which can be seen as an important complementary analysis component in a repository. These five categories are the most common inputs for this classification.

Other studies employ alternative inputs that are used in groups of 12 to 13 studies, representing less than 5% (see Table 7). Those categories are “branches”, “defects”, and “pulls and pull requests” and “committers”. The studies take characteristics from code repositories as mentioned in Section 2.1. In study 75 (Elsen, 2013) mention that a potential contributor may participate in the development or maintenance process by submitting a pull request, which will be reviewed for acceptance or rejection by the central development team. It is here, that in addition to hosting software repositories, features such as “defects” of the developers and the “branches” or “forks” of the projects are incorporated into the development process (Liu et al., 2016). These actions and interactions of the developers are to be collected and allows the possibility of analysis within the code repositories.

Other five categories with 27 studies in total represent no more than 8% (see Table 7) of the total studies in RQ1. These studies are directed at features of the code repositories presented in Section 2.1. The categorization with the type of information as input is “informal information” which focuses on “chats”, “mails” and “messages” interchanged. “Level of interest” relates to the social components of the project such as “stars”, “follows” and “watches”, that are mechanisms typically offered in public open source repositories like, for example, GitHub. “Project features info” involves aspects like the “size”, “owner”, “weeks”, “contributors” which are a part of the general features of the code repository. “Logs” and “graphs/news feed” are categories that also contribute as inputs to the analysis of the code repository.

The methods or techniques used in the process of analysis of the code repository can be observed in Table 8 together with the distribution of studies for this question. Results for this question were obtained using the procedure for data extraction and taxonomy provided in Section 3.1.5. There are some papers that are present in more than one category, i.e. different methods contributed by the paper were counted. As a result, the percentage column in Table 8 represents the total.

The mapping indicates that the most common is “empirical/experimental” with 93 studies (38%) (see Table 8). This type of studies is a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable and controlled way to evaluate information and approaches against other existing ones and to know under which criteria they are better (Genero Bocco et al., 2014). These methods include empirical studies, empirical evaluations, experimental studies, empirical analyses, case studies, systematic literature reviews, research strategy, etc.

The second most recurrent methods are tagged as “automatic” with 29 studies (12%) (see Table 8).These studies focus on using tool automation techniques to perform a specific task. For example, 67 (Dias et al., 2015) proposes an automatic tool to untangle fine grain code changes in groups, allowing good results with an average success rate of 91%. The proposal of study 176 (Martínez-Torres et al., 2013) develops an automatic categorization tool to extract text for the analysis of knowledge sharing activities in projects.

The third input is “artificial intelligence/machine learning” (AI/ML) with 29 studies (12%) (see Table 8). These studies use techniques that are relevant today as they have achieved a remarkable momentum that, if properly used, can meet the best expectations in many application sectors across the research field (Barredo Arrieta et al., 2020). Due to this importance, we provide a specific classification within this category.

The vertiginous increase of artifacts using AI/ML techniques demonstrates the inclination of the software engineering community towards this branch. These are not isolated cases or fads (Harman, 2012). Nowadays, the nature of software goes hand in hand with human intelligence; this is where AI/ML techniques are becoming a part of software, specifically in the field of code repositories.

The renewed interest and number of AI/ML techniques has led to many advances related to this field. For example, Bayesian statistics (Abdeen et al., 2015), Convolutional Neural Network (Li et al., 2019) and Random Forest Classifier (Maqsood et al., 2017). These are used to understand bugs or make predictions of possible code changes, finding and predicting defects in a code repository or identifying code repository errors. Besides, it has been criticised that many of these approaches to building smarter software are too far from human-level intelligence and are therefore likely to be insufficient (Feldt et al., 2018). This situation has focused on the need for less complex algorithms and tools to be integrated into the systems and solutions that are used by organizations.

Table 9 shows the taxonomic subcategories that we have carried out based on (Baltrusaitis et al., 2019) and (Agarwal et al., 2019) for “Machine Learning” and (Gani et al., 2016) for “Artificial Intelligence”. These techniques and methods aim to build models that can process and relate information from multiple sources. It is worth mentioning that these techniques have a growing importance and an extraordinary potential.

There exist examples where AI/ML models are applied to improve software development, specifically in the area of code repositories. For example, the study 87 (Fu et al., 2015) uses the technique Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to extract information from the change messages of the repository to classify them in an automatic way. Another example is the study 127 (Joblin et al., 2015) where a general approach is proposed for the automatic building of developer networks based on source code structure and commit information, obtained from a code repository that is applicable to a wide variety of software projects.

Other examples are the study 122 (Jiang et al., 2019) that uses a random forest classifier and naive bayes classifier together with the study 3 (Abdeen et al., 2015) that uses a Bayesian classifier. Both studies use those classifiers as the main technique to process and analyse the input information and generate models to predict different aspects of the code repositories (change impact or code review, among others).

The proposed taxonomy aids the understanding and comprehension of AI/ML techniques used in code repository analysis.

Continuing with the taxonomy for (RQ2), other relevant techniques used in the selected studies are those related to “statistical analyses” appearing with 24 studies (10%) (see Table 8), this category groups different techniques such as “Micro-Productivity Profiles Method”, “Quantitative analysis”, “Models regression”, “Regression tree”, etc. Some examples of the application of these techniques are studies 89 (Gamalielsson and Lundell, 2014) through a review quantitative analysis of project repository data in order to investigate the sustainability in OSS communities with a detailed analysis of developer communities, the authors of study 86 (Foucault et al., 2015) provide a quantitative analysis of the rotation patterns and effects of developer that along with the activity of external newcomers, affect negatively the quality of the software; or the study 38 (Borges and Tulio Valente, 2018) provides strong empirical quantitative evidence about the meaning of the number of stars in the code repository, recommending to monitor this metric to use it as a pattern for repository selection.

Following the classification we find the use of “ad hoc algorithms”, that are used in 23 studies, representing 9% (see Table 8). In these studies, specific algorithms are provided, for example, semantic slicing, gumtree, prediction partial matching, etc. These are applied, for example, for information analysis, as in the study 61 (Datta et al., 2012) algorithms to determine social collaboration teams are employed. Also, the study 173 (Malheiros et al., 2012) provided an algorithm to analyse change requests and recommend potentially relevant source code that will help the developer.

Another category is “data mining” with 15 studies (6%) (see Table 8). Data mining refers to the extraction or “mining” of knowledge from large volumes of data (Grossi et al., 2017). Studies rely on these techniques (“Hierarchical agglomerative clustering”, “Information retrieval (IR)”, “Decision Tree”, “C4.5”, “Logistic Regression”, “k-Nearest Neighbour (k-NN)”, etc.) to process data from code repositories.

The rest of the studies add up to 15% of RQ2. Qualitative analyses with 9 studies (4%). “prediction” with 8 studies (3%), “reverse engineering with 6 studies (2%). “heuristical techniques” with 6 studies (2%). Finally, “testing-based techniques” with 4 studies (2%) (see Table 8).

Having analysed the studies according to RQ3, the main output generated is information related to “developer behaviour” with 65 studies (26%) (see Table 10). Currently researchers have been motivated by the lack of research on developer-related social processes oriented to management, analysis, maintenance and teamwork (Gamalielsson and Lundell, 2014) and we see this is reflected in the mapping study. The category groups different characteristics of the developer that can be extracted from the code repositories, for example, with the purpose of knowing developers’ patterns, developers’ sentiment classification, developer contribution analysis, developer social networks, development processes, etc. These outputs are eventually used to improve the maintenance and generally to comprehend the evolution of software.

For example, we can point out the study 186 (Murgia et al., 2014) where emotion mining is performed, applied to developers’ problem reports, and it can be useful to identify and monitor the mood of the development team, which allows to anticipate and solve possible threats in their team. Another example is the study 130 (Kagdi1 et al., 2014) that proposes an approach to recommend a classified list of expert developers to assist in the implementation of software change requests (e.g. bug reports and feature requests).

The second most recurrent output is “changes analysis” with 35 studies (14%) (see Table 10). These studies are interesting since the information extracted from these code changes can be used to predict future defects, analyse who should be assigned a particular task, obtain information on specific projects or measure the impact of the organizational structure on software quality (Herzig et al., 2016).

For example, the study 138 (Kirinuki et al., 2014) proposes a technique to prevent “tangled changes” in which it is identified whether a developer’s changes are tangled and using the technique, developers can be made aware that their changes are potentially tangled and can be given the opportunity to commit the tangled changes separately. The study 187 (Negara et al., 2014) presents an approach that identifies previously unknown frequent code change patterns of a sequence of fine-grained code changes.

The next output is tagged as “metrics/quality” with 24 studies (10%) (see Table 10). Software metrics and measurements are those processes or tools that include the assessment of the software product, project or process in order to obtain values that can help give indicators of one or more software attributes (Abuasad and Alsmadi, 1994, (2012)). This category is made up of these specific outputs like change analysis, change contracts, change histories, change impact analysis, etc. To exemplify, the study 80 (Finlay et al., 2014) describes the extraction of metrics from a repository and the application of data flow mining techniques to identify useful metrics to predict the success or failure of the construction. We can also mention the study 145 (Kumar et al., 2018) that proposes the creation of an effective failure prediction tool by identifying and investigating the predictive capabilities of several well-known and widely used software metrics for failure prediction.

Then, the output “deffect/issue analysis” with 21 studies (9%) (see Table 10) groups studies focusing on repository data and are employed to provide software analytics and predict where defects might appear in the future (Rosen et al., 2015). An example of this is the paper 207 (Rosen et al., 2015), which presents a tool that performs analysis and predicts risks in software by performing commits. Alternatively, the study 97 (Gupta et al., 2014) proposes a run-time process model for the error resolution process using a process mining tool and an analysis of the performance and efficiency of the process is performed.

Another category of importance is “Source Code Improvements” with 21 studies (9%) (see Table 10), grouped according to identifiers in source code, source code legibility, annotations, source code plagiarism detection, scope of source code comments, etc.

The output “Commits/Committers” with 17 studies (7%) (see Table 10) corresponds to studies that usually extract information to perform a classification of commit messages, change messages, committers or commits from the code repository.

The following output categories in RQ3 correspond to “Cloning Detection” with 13 studies (5%) and is made up of studies where information about code cloning that aims to detect all groups of code blocks or code fragments that are functionally equivalent in a code base is derived (Nishi and Damevski, 2018). “Maintainability Information” with 11 studies (4%) is made up of studies on traceability, maintainability or technical debt. “Design Modelling” with 10 studies (4%) has studies that extract information on UML models, EMF patterns or patterns of social forking. “Commit Analysis” has 9 studies (4%), “Automatic Processing”, 7 studies (3%), “Code Review”, 5 studies (2%), “Branching Analysis”, 5 studies (2%) and “Testing Data”, 3 studies (1%) (see Table 10).

Figure 6 presents a bubble graph summarizing the combination of principal questions (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3) organized as the black box model, starting with the input, the method/technique and the output (Section 3.1.1). The largest bubble (47 studies) represents studies that take as input the category “Source Code” and the methods or techniques for processing are “Empirical/Experimental”. After this, the second largest bubble (37 studies) represents that the information taken for the analysis is the “Commit Data” and the techniques, used for processing it, are equally empirical or experimental. On the other hand, the third bubble (37 studies) in terms of information extracted from the analysis of the repositories shows that it is used for “Developer Behaviour”. We observe that in the bubbles of “Automatic”, “Data Mining” and “Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning” these techniques are used to process information and it has become an emerging field to process information from the repositories. Another interesting point to highlight is that all categories of both input and output use empirical/experimental techniques and methods to process information.

Analysing the data obtained from the SMS, we observe that the main trend in code repository research focuses on using empirical or experimental techniques (93 studies) in source code, code review and code repository commits to obtain results, especially related to developers’ analysis (67 studies). Research trends seem to gravitate towards analyses of code changes and the impact they have on software maintenance and evolution. Analyses, metrics, measurements and classification of developers’ feelings, efforts and contributions are the trends revealed by the SMS. Another marked trend in the research is the analysis of defects, issues and bugs present in the software and looking for patterns or ways to find these defects or predict them.

Figure 7 describes the arrangement of the primary studies according to research questions RQ4 and RQ5. The definition of the kind of contribution for each paper was done alongside the data extraction procedure (Section 3.1.5). There also may be papers that are present in more than one category to provide a solution. The main and central contribution for each paper was analysed for figuring out its classification. Regarding the nature of the research, the graph shows that the majority of studies (90%) provides solution proposals. A further 4% of studies are applied research. Two percent of studies are classified as validation research. Finally, remaining 4% are classified as evaluation research (1%), opinion articles (1%), personal experience articles (1%), philosophical articles (1%).

With respect to industry interest in the field of research, Fig. 7 shows that 97% of the selected studies are authored by at least one affiliate of a university or research centre. This percentage is very high, which allows us to know that researchers are interested in the different areas of code repositories. The classification that follows is “Both” with 3%, these studies have a mixed authorship between academia and industry.

Finally, we used the instrument for quality assessment (Section 3.1.4) with the primary studies. Figure 8 shows the quality assessment of the seven assessment questions, in which the instrument is applied with its respective scale. AQ1 to AQ5 are questions that are evaluated in quantitative terms, while AQ6 and AQ7 are objective questions. The systematic method (AQ1) of the selected studies, which represents whether it is possible to replicate the methods and techniques systematically, resulted in the majority with high values (mostly evaluated as ‘5’), the other studies were rated between 3 and 4. Regarding the presentation of a result of the analysis of the code repository (AQ2), most of the studies (176) were rated as ‘5’ (see Fig. 8). This shows that the studies present some proposal or result of the analysis carried out. In terms of methods, tools or related aspects (AQ3), most of the studies obtained a value of ‘5’ (see Fig. 8). As for problems of quality, development or evolution of software (AQ4), the studies seek solutions through an artifact (tool, framework, methodology, etc.), and most of them were evaluated with ‘5’ (see Fig. 8). In relation to the proposals being able to be implemented in industrial environments (AQ5), they were evaluated with a high value (‘5’). This means that a study is considered replicable, but there are strong dependencies in terms of tools, software and configurations that should be considered (see Fig. 8).

Finally, questions AQ6 and AQ7 objectively assess the citations and relevance of the conferences and journals in which the selected studies were published (see Fig. 8). Most studies have been referenced several times. Table 11 shows the most cited documents. The most cited paper is the study 2 (Abdalkareem et al., 2017) (143 times). That study focuses on providing an insight into the potential impact of reusing repository code in mobile applications, through an exploratory study where open source applications in a code repository are analysed. These results can benefit the research community in the development of new techniques and tools to facilitate and improve code reuse.

In addition to the analysis of the most cited articles, we have carried out a social network analysis (SNA), which allows us to generate a graph and identify the main groups of authors together with the most relevant authors in the area (Franco-Bedoya et al., 2017). The methodology used for our analysis is based on (Wang et al., 2016). The analysis is done with our SMS studies and is the main column of the network.

In the co-citation analysis, a matrix is compiled by retrieving the quotation counts of each pair of the important documents that were identified in the citation analysis, and a major component of the factor analysis is to reveal the knowledge clusters of the code repository research (Wang et al., 2016).

We use the VOSviewer software that enables sophisticated cluster analysis without the need for in-depth knowledge of clusters and without the need for advanced computer skills (van Eck and Waltman, 2017).

In Fig. 9, the size of a cluster reflects the number of papers belonging to the cluster. Larger clusters include more publications. The distance between two clusters roughly indicates the relationship of the clusters in terms of citations. The clusters that are close to each other tend to be strongly related in terms of co-citations, while clusters that are farther apart tend to be less related (van Eck and Waltman, 2017). The curved lines between clusters also reflect the relationship between them, and the thickness of a line represents the number of citations between two clusters. VOSviewer has its own clustering technique (Waltman et al., 2010). This clustering technique was used to divide in 14 clusters with four main branches. This was done based on the citation relationships between the analysed studies. In Fig. 9, each cluster has a colour indicating the group to which the cluster was assigned. Thus, a breakdown of papers concerning code repositories into broad subfields is obtained. A rough interpretation can be depicted as follows: The cluster in the down-left corner that becomes a branch (green, orange and pink nodes) seems to cover research about changes analysis, maintenance and code review to maintain software quality. The branch on the down-right (purple, red and brown nodes) seems to cover the research about code changes, commit analysis, automatic processing by focusing on bugs and software defects. The branch in top-left corner (blue and pink nodes) might be related to research in source code improvements and metrics/quality. Finally, the top-right branch (light blue and green) is more related to research in the field of defect/issue analysis, maintainability information and developer behaviour.

The main research question and the reason for this SMS was to know the information that is extracted from the code repositories along with the methods and tools to process it and the output that is obtained from this process. Our SMS has scrutinized and schematized this field of research and determined its current status by analysing, evaluating, and understanding the research to date in relation to extraction, methods/tools and output generated from code repositories. The main findings are:

The main findings presented above have some implications for researchers and practitioners working in the industry who research code repositories. For the academic world, the most used inputs for information analysis are mostly source code and commit data, the categories that have less amount of studies are an area of research to be explored. As for the methods and techniques used for the analysis of information in the repository, a wide variety of tools, techniques and methods are used (see Fig. 7), especially most approaches focus on empirical studies or artificial intelligence, which provides different approaches to information processing, and most studies seek to improve data processing to meet the studied objectives. As shown in Fig. 3, research involving analysis of information from code repositories is increasing every year. Therefore, it becomes a wide area of future research. Another important implication for researchers is that most of the proposed methods and techniques require several tools and software to replicate the studies. This makes these techniques somewhat complex to replicate in the industry. Finally, researchers should also focus on how the obtained information is applied to solve problems of software quality and evolution, which is the important point for both academia and industry and therefore seeks to improve software development.

In this section we discuss the limitations of our systematic mapping study, based on the types of validity proposed by Petersen and Gencel (2013), which we describe below:

Interpretive validity is achieved when the drawn conclusions are reasonable from the data obtained and lead to the validation of the mapping (Petersen and Gencel, 2013). The main threat is author bias in the interpretation of the data. To mitigate this, the discussion groups and the classification process of the primary study selection were carried out. The researchers participated in various meetings to analyse and interpret the obtained data, in which their conclusions were discussed, and they made sure to maintain the same criteria.

Repeatability is the ability of other researchers to replicate the results. To achieve reliability, research steps must be repeatable (Badampudi et al., 2016). Detailed measures adopted in searches are limitations to theoretical validity and may lead to a lack of reporting capacity (Munir et al., 2016). For example, the used search strings and databases extract the sought information, due to the documented inclusion/exclusion criteria, which increases reliability.

There is always a risk of losing primary studies with only one search string for all selected databases (Cosentino et al., 2017). Therefore, a preliminary test with several versions of search strings was performed in the pilot search.

In addition, the inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined as in Genero et al. (2011). Collection of as many articles as possible aligned with the theme of the code repository. Repeatability of data extraction is important. We mitigated this threat by extracting and sorting the gathered papers in focus group sessions in which all researchers participated. The steps and information of our research are documented and published at https://GitHub.com/jaimepsayago/SMS including tables, graphs and the corresponding tables and analyses found in the document. In addition, all studies were classified according to the criteria of rigour and relevance adapted from Ivarsson and Gorschek (2011). This facilitates the traceability and repeatability of our study.