Hi, author, first thanks for your wonderful work! I can learn a lot from Recoder.
But for the patch validation phase, I find you only run the failing test cases but do not run all test cases. It could make some biases on the experiment results.
For example, according to http://program-repair.org/defects4j-dissection/#!/, Closure_21, Math_98 and Math_65 are two-hunk bugs, but in your patch file, they are fixed with only one code change.
And why the buggy line of Math_96 is "return real;" ?
Besides, should the patch of Math_30 be correct? (replace int with long, but the developer patch replace int with double)
Hi, author, first thanks for your wonderful work! I can learn a lot from Recoder.
But for the patch validation phase, I find you only run the failing test cases but do not run all test cases. It could make some biases on the experiment results. For example, according to http://program-repair.org/defects4j-dissection/#!/, Closure_21, Math_98 and Math_65 are two-hunk bugs, but in your patch file, they are fixed with only one code change.
And why the buggy line of Math_96 is "return real;" ?
Besides, should the patch of Math_30 be correct? (replace int with long, but the developer patch replace int with double)
Also, why the patch of closure_126 is correct ?