The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GrimoireLab: A toolset for software development analytics
Abstract
Background: After many years of research on software repositories, the knowledge for building mature, reusable tools that perform data retrieval, storage and basic analytics is readily available. However, there is still room to improvement in the area of reusable tools implementing this knowledge. Goal: To produce a reusable toolset supporting the most common tasks when retrieving, curating and visualizing data from software repositories, allowing for the easy reproduction of data sets ready for more complex analytics, and sparing the researcher or the analyst of most of the tasks that can be automated. Method: Use our experience in building tools in this domain to identify a collection of scenarios where a reusable toolset would be convenient, and the main components of such a toolset. Then build those components, and refine them incrementally using the feedback from their use in both commercial, community-based, and academic environments. Results: GrimoireLab, an efficient toolset composed of five main components, supporting about 30 different kinds of data sources related to software development. It has been tested in many environments, for performing different kinds of studies, and providing different kinds of services. It features a common API for accessing the retrieved data, facilities for relating items from different data sources, semi-structured storage for easing later analysis and reproduction, and basic facilities for visualization, preliminary analysis and drill-down in the data. It is also modular, making it easy to support new kinds of data sources and analysis. Conclusions: We present a mature toolset, widely tested in the field, that can help to improve the situation in the area of reusable tools for mining software repositories. We show some scenarios where it has already been used. We expect it will help to reduce the effort for doing studies or providing services in this area, leading to advances in reproducibility and comparison of results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
pandas: a Foundational Python Library for Data Analysis and Statistics
McKinney, W. (2011) · Cited by 1,264
Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository
Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145396 · Cited by 999
PyDriller: Python framework for mining software repositories
Spadini, D., Aniche, M. F., & Bacchelli, A. (2018) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3236024.3264598 · Cited by 359
Boa: A language and infrastructure for analyzing ultra-large-scale software repositories
Dyer, R., Nguyen, H. A., Rajan, H., & Nguyen, T. N. (2013) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606588 · Cited by 267
GHTorrent: Github's data from a firehose
Gousios, G., & Spinellis, D. D. (2012) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr.2012.6224294 · Cited by 248
Boa: A Language and Infrastructure for Analyzing Ultra-Large-Scale Software Repositories
Dyer, R., Nguyen, H. A., Rajan, H., & Nguyen, T. N. (2013) · Cited by 246
The ABC of Software Engineering Research
Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3241743 · Cited by 245
Collaboration Tools for Global Software Engineering
Lanubile, F., Ebert, C., Prikladnicki, R., & Vizcaíno, A. (2010) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2010.39 · Cited by 227
Bajracharya, S. K., Ngo, T. C., Linstead, E. J., Dou, Y., Rigor, P., Baldi, P., & Lopes, C. V. (2006) · Companion to the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA Companion) · doi:10.1145/1176617.1176671 · Cited by 220
The impact of social media on software engineering practices and tools
Storey, M., Treude, C., Arie Van Deursen, A., & Cheng, L.-T. (2010) · FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research (FoSER) · doi:10.1145/1882362.1882435 · Cited by 216
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2016, Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive), Official Journal of the European Union, EUR-Lex Document 32016R0679, May 2016, 1
- Rubin, 2007, Process mining framework for software processes, 4470
Metadata
- Authors
- Dueñas, S., Cosentino, V., Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., del Castillo San Felix, A., Izquierdo-Cortazar, D., Cañas-Díaz, L., & Pérez García-Plaza, A.
- Venue
- PeerJ Computer Science
- Publisher
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2021-07-09
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- e601
- ISSN
- 2376-5992
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 66
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología of Spain (RTI2018-101963-B-I00, RTC-2017-6554-7)
- Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of Spain (PTQ-15-07709)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GrimoireLab: A toolset for software development analytics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj-cs.601
- The paper
- Dueñas, S., Cosentino, V., Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., del Castillo San Felix, A., Izquierdo-Cortazar, D., Cañas-Díaz, L., & Pérez García-Plaza, A. (2021). GrimoireLab: A toolset for software development analytics. PeerJ Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.601
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
