REVIEW 1 cited by
Developers' Perception of GitHub Actions: A Survey Analysis
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
GitHub introduced "Actions" in 2019 to increase workflow velocity and add customized automation to the repositories. Any individual can develop Actions for automating workflow on GitHub repositories and others can reuse them whenever open source. GitHub introduced its marketplace for commercializing and sharing these automation tools, which currently hosts 16,730 Actions. Yet, there are numerous Actions that are developed and distributed in local repositories and outside the Marketplace. So far, the research community conducted mining studies to understand Actions with a significant focus on CI/CD. We conducted a survey study with 90 Action developers and users to understand the motivations and best practices in using, developing, and debugging Actions, and the challenges associated with these tasks. We found that developers prefer Actions with verified creators and more stars when choosing between similar Actions, and often switch to an alternative Action when facing bugs or a lack of documentation. 60.87% of the developers consider the composition of YAML files, which are essential for Action integration, challenging and error-prone. They mainly check Q\&A forums to fix issues with these YAML files. Finally, developers tend to avoid using Actions (and hence automation) to reduce complexity, and security risk, or when the benefits of Actions are not worth the cost/effort of setting up Actions for automation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Extension Decisions in Open Source Software Ecosystem
A GitHub Actions graph study reports that most new CI tools duplicate existing functionality and that a handful of early tools become the templates for later copies, although the supporting calculation is missing from...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.