Continuous Integration (CI) is a common practice adopted by modern software organizations. It plays an especially important role for large corporations like Company Y, where thousands of build jobs are submitted daily. Indeed, the cadence of development progress is constrained by the pace at which CI services process build jobs. To provide faster CI feedback, recent work explores how build outcomes can be anticipated. Although early results show plenty of promise, the distinct characteristics of Project X—a AAA video game project at Company Y, present new challenges for build outcome prediction. In the Project X setting, changes that do not modify source code also incur build failures. Moreover, we find that the code changes that have an impact that crosses the source-data boundary are more prone to build failures than code changes that do not impact data files. Since such changes are not fully characterized by the existing set of build outcome prediction features, state-of-the-art models tend to underperform.

Therefore, to accommodate the data context into build outcome prediction, we propose RavenBuild, a novel approach that leverages context, relevance, and dependency-aware features. We apply the state-of-the-art BuildFast model and RavenBuild to Project X, and observe that RavenBuild improves the F1-score of the failing class by 46%, the recall of the failing class by 76%, and AUC by 28%. To ease adoption in settings with heterogeneous project sets, we also provide a simplified alternative RavenBuild-CR, which excludes dependency-aware features. We apply RavenBuild-CR on 22 open-source projects and Project X, and observe across-the-board improvements as well. On the other hand, we find that a naive Parrot approach, which simply echoes the previous build outcome as its prediction, is surprisingly competitive with BuildFast and RavenBuild. Though Parrot fails to predict when the build outcome differs from their immediate predecessor, Parrot serves well as a tendency indicator of the sequences in build outcome datasets. Therefore, future studies should also consider comparing to the Parrot approach as a baseline when evaluating build outcome prediction models.