Much more interesting is this: https://github.com/eclipse/ditto/pull/151/files. How did it know to use this.isConsuming()?
Here's the list of PRs it made: https://github.com/Spirals-Team/repairnator/issues/758
I want to take issue with a quote from the paper:
> There is one more aspect to consider. It has been shown that human engineers do not accept contributions from bots as easily as contributions from other humans, even if they are strictly identical [5]. The reason is that humans tend to have a priori biases against machines, and are more tolerant to errors if the contribution comes from a human peer.
Even if a machine and a human submit the exact same patch, the human's carries the implicit promise that it was the result of a (more or less :) intelligent process. The human actually thought about it and came to the conclusion that not only did it make the build pass but that it was, taking into account as much context as might be necessary, the right patch to make. If you review a machine's patch, you are obliged to perform the whole intelligent evaluation of whether it is the right patch yourself, which is almost never easier than simply writing the patch yourself.
There also is a human analyzing these patches and who is submitting the PRs. They say they don't want to waste the developers time, so while it is not explicitly stated, I would guess that they may touch up patches that fix the build failure but would otherwise be rejected because of code quality/conventions/formatting. I could see that automated tools may come up with solution that are equivalent to checking 'isConsuming', but would place that check at other locations than a human would (for example directly where the error is thrown).
The file here has the necessary initialization for params for this to work: https://github.com/GeoWebCache/geowebcache/blob/master/geowe...
