AUTOMATED CODE INSPECTOR

Author

SURYA R, SURYADHARSHINI S, SUSILA M , SWATHI M


Abstract

 Software quality plays a crucial role in developing reliable, secure, and maintainable applications. Traditional code inspection methods require considerable time and manual effort to identify programming errors, coding standard violations, and potential security issues. To address these challenges, this project presents an Automated Code Inspector, an intelligent code analysis system designed to examine source code and provide detailed feedback. The system allows users to submit source code through a user-friendly interface for automated inspection. It analyzes the submitted code to identify syntax errors, coding style violations, code complexity, unused variables, and potential code quality issues. The backend processes the source code using analysis modules and AI-assisted evaluation to generate meaningful explanations and improvement suggestions. It also evaluates code quality based on identified issues and presents the results in a structured format. The system helps developers understand programming mistakes, improve code readability, reduce debugging effort, and maintain better coding practices. By combining automated analysis with intelligent feedback, the Automated Code Inspector provides an efficient and accessible approach to improving software quality and supporting the software development process.



Keywords

Code Analysis, Error Detection, Code Quality, AI Code Review, Code Optimization, Software Testing, Bug Detection.



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  1. Fagan, M. E. (1976). Design and code inspections to reduce errorsin program development. IBM Systems Journal, 15(3), 182–
  2. Bacchelli,, & Bird, C. (2013). Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, 712–721.
  3. Johnson, C. (1978). Lint, a C program checker. Bell Laboratories, Computing Science Technical Report 65.
  4. Ayewah,, Hovemeyer, D., Morgenthaler, J. D., Penix, J., & Pugh, W. (2008). Using static analysis to find bugs. IEEE Software, 25(5), 22–29.
  5. Johnson,, Song, Y., Murphy-Hill, E., & Bowdidge, R. (2013). Why don't software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs? Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, 672–681.
  6. Chess,, & McGraw, G. (2004). Static analysis for security. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2(6), 76–79.
  7. Aho, A. V., Lam, M. S., Sethi, R., & Ullman, J. D. (2006).Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools (2nd ed.). Pearson
  8. PythonSoftware  ast – Abstract Syntax Trees. Python Standard Library Documentation.
  9. vanRossum, , Warsaw, B., & Coghlan, N. (2001). PEP 8 – Style Guide for Python Code. Python Enhancement Proposals.
  10. McCabe, J. (1976). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-2(4), 308–320.
  11. Chidamber, R., & Kemerer, C. F. (1994). A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(6), 476–493.
  12. Fowler, (1999). Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley.
  13. OWASP OWASP Top Ten Web Application Security Risks. OWASP.
  14. Li, Z., et al. (2018). VulDeePecker: A deep learning-based system for vulnerability detection. Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium.

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons