Researchers Secretly Deployed A Bot That Submitted Bug-Fixing Pull Requests

An anonymous reader quotes Martin Monperrus, a professor of software at Stockholm's KTH Royal Institute of Technology:

Repairnator is a bot. It constantly monitors software bugs discovered during continuous integration of open-source software and tries to fix them automatically. If it succeeds to synthesize a valid patch, Repairnator proposes the patch to the human developers, disguised under a fake human identity. To date, Repairnator has been able to produce 5 patches that were accepted by the human developers and permanently merged in the code base...
It analyzes bugs and produces patches, in the same way as human developers involved in software maintenance activities. This idea of a program repair bot is disruptive, because today humans are responsible for fixing bugs. In others words, we are talking about a bot meant to (partially) replace human developers for tedious tasks.... [F]or a patch to be human-competitive 1) the bot has to synthesize the patch faster than the human developer 2) the patch has to be judged good-enough by the human developer and permanently merged in the code base.... We believe that Repairnator prefigures a certain future of software development, where bots and humans will smoothly collaborate and even cooperate on software artifacts.
Their fake identity was a software engineer named Luc Esape, with a profile picture that 'looks like a junior developer, eager to make open-source contributions... humans tend to have a priori biases against machines, and are more tolerant to errors if the contribution comes from a human peer. In the context of program repair, this means that developers may put the bar higher on the quality of the patch, if they know that the patch comes from a bot.'

The researchers proudly published the approving comments on their merged patches -- although a conundrum arose when repairnator submitted a patch for Eclipse Ditto, only to be told that 'We can only accept pull-requests which come from users who signed the Eclipse Foundation Contributor License Agreement.'

'We were puzzled because a bot cannot physically or morally sign a license agreement and is probably not entitled to do so. Who owns the intellectual property and responsibility of a bot contribution: the robot operator, the bot implementer or the repair algorithm designer?'

Read more of this story at Slashdot.