[kapep]

In their paper it sounds like they only focus on automating the process of analyzing build failures and submitting patches, while the actual repair is done by "[running] different program repair prototypes coming from the latest academic research" to produce possible patches that fix the build failure. It would be interesting to know which tools are used here that are able to produce solutions like adding the check for 'isConsuming'.

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).