Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn the use of test smells for prediction of flaky tests
265
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Bruno Henrique Pachulski Camara
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Regression testing is an important phase to deliver software with quality. However, flaky tests hamper the evaluation of test results and can increase costs. This is because a flaky test may pass or fail non-deterministically and to identify properly the flakiness of a test requires rerunning the test suite multiple times. To cope with this challenge, approaches have been proposed based on prediction models and machine learning. Existing approaches based on the use of the test case vocabulary may be context-sensitive and prone to overfitting, presenting low performance when executed in a cross-project scenario. To overcome these limitations, we investigate the use of test smells as predictors of flaky tests. We conducted an empirical study to understand if test smells have good performance as a classifier to predict the flakiness in the cross-project context, and analyzed the information gain of each test smell. We also compared the test smell-based approach with the vocabulary-based one. As a result, we obtained a classifier that had a reasonable performance (Random Forest, 0.83) to predict the flakiness in the testing phase. This classifier presented better performance than vocabulary-based model for cross-project prediction. The Assertion Roulette and Sleepy Test test smell types are the ones associated with the best information gain values.
rate research
Read More
Flaky tests have gained attention from the research community in recent years and with good reason. These tests lead to wasted time and resources, and they reduce the reliability of the test suites and build systems they affect. However, most of the existing work on flaky tests focus exclusively on traditional unit tests. This work ignores UI tests that have larger input spaces and more diverse running conditions than traditional unit tests. In addition, UI tests tend to be more complex and resource-heavy, making them unsuited for detection techniques involving rerunning test suites multiple times. In this paper, we perform a study on flaky UI tests. We analyze 235 flaky UI test samples found in 62 projects from both web and Android environments. We identify the common underlying root causes of flakiness in the UI tests, the strategies used to manifest the flaky behavior, and the fixing strategies used to remedy flaky UI tests. The findings made in this work can provide a foundation for the development of detection and prevention techniques for flakiness arising in UI tests.
Software systems have been continuously evolved and delivered with high quality due to the widespread adoption of automated tests. A recurring issue hurting this scenario is the presence of flaky tests, a test case that may pass or fail non-deterministically. A promising, but yet lacking more empirical evidence, approach is to collect static data of automated tests and use them to predict their flakiness. In this paper, we conducted an empirical study to assess the use of code identifiers to predict test flakiness. To do so, we first replicate most parts of the previous study of Pinto~et~al.~(MSR~2020). This replication was extended by using a different ML Python platform (Scikit-learn) and adding different learning algorithms in the analyses. Then, we validated the performance of trained models using datasets with other flaky tests and from different projects. We successfully replicated the results of Pinto~et~al.~(2020), with minor differences using Scikit-learn; different algorithms had performance similar to the ones used previously. Concerning the validation, we noticed that the recall of the trained models was smaller, and classifiers presented a varying range of decreases. This was observed in both intra-project and inter-projects test flakiness prediction.
Validation of Android apps via testing is difficult owing to the presence of flaky tests. Due to non-deterministic execution environments, a sequence of events (a test) may lead to success or failure in unpredictable ways. In this work, we present an approach and tool FlakeShovel for detecting flaky tests through systematic exploration of event orders. Our key observation is that for a test in a mobile app, there is a testing framework thread which creates the test events, a main User-Interface (UI) thread processing these events, and there may be several other background threads running asynchronously. For any event e whose execution involves potential non-determinism, we localize the earliest (latest) event after (before) which e must happen.We then efficiently explore the schedules between the upper/lower bound events while grouping events within a single statement, to find whether the test outcome is flaky. We also create a suite of subject programs called DroidFlaker to study flaky tests in Android apps. Our experiments on subject-suite DroidFlaker demonstrate the efficacy of our flaky test detection. Our work is complementary to existing flaky test detection tools like Deflaker which check only failing tests. FlakeShovel can detect flaky tests among passing tests, as shown by our approach and experiments.
Requirements Engineering (RE) is the initial step towards building a software system. The success or failure of a software project is firmly tied to this phase, based on communication among stakeholders using natural language. The problem with natural language is that it can easily lead to different understandings if it is not expressed precisely by the stakeholders involved, which results in building a product different from the expected one. Previous work proposed to enhance the quality of the software requirements detecting language errors based on ISO 29148 requirements language criteria. The existing solutions apply classical Natural Language Processing (NLP) to detect them. NLP has some limitations, such as domain dependability which results in poor generalization capability. Therefore, this work aims to improve the previous work by creating a manually labeled dataset and using ensemble learning, Deep Learning (DL), and techniques such as word embeddings and transfer learning to overcome the generalization problem that is tied with classical NLP and improve precision and recall metrics using a manually labeled dataset. The current findings show that the dataset is unbalanced and which class examples should be added more. It is tempting to train algorithms even if the dataset is not considerably representative. Whence, the results show that models are overfitting; in Machine Learning this issue is solved by adding more instances to the dataset, improving label quality, removing noise, and reducing the learning algorithms complexity, which is planned for this research.
The learning and usage of an API is supported by official documentation. Like source code, API documentation is itself a software product. Several research results show that bad design in API documentation can make the reuse of API features difficult. Indeed, similar to code smells or code antipatterns, poorly designed API documentation can also exhibit smells. Such documentation smells can be described as bad documentation styles that do not necessarily produce an incorrect documentation but nevertheless make the documentation difficult to properly understand and to use. Recent research on API documentation has focused on finding content inaccuracies in API documentation and to complement API documentation with external resources (e.g., crowd-shared code examples). We are aware of no research that focused on the automatic detection of API documentation smells. This paper makes two contributions. First, we produce a catalog of five API documentation smells by consulting literature on API documentation presentation problems. We create a benchmark dataset of 1,000 API documentation units by exhaustively and manually validating the presence of the five smells in Java official API reference and instruction documentation. Second, we conduct a survey of 21 professional software developers to validate the catalog. The developers agreed that they frequently encounter all five smells in API official documentation and 95.2% of them reported that the presence of the documentation smells negatively affects their productivity. The participants wished for tool support to automatically detect and fix the smells in API official documentation. We develop a suite of rule-based, deep and shallow machine learning classifiers to automatically detect the smells. The best performing classifier BERT, a deep learning model, achieves F1-scores of 0.75 - 0.97.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
