{"title":"Surveying the Developer Experience of Flaky Tests","authors":"Michael C Hilton","doi":"10.1145/3510457.3513037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Test cases that pass and fail without changes to the code under test are known as flaky. The past decade has seen increasing research interest in flaky tests, though little attention has been afforded to the views and experiences of software developers. In this study, we utilized a multi-source approach to obtain insights into how developers define flaky tests, their experiences of the impacts and causes of flaky tests, and the actions they take in response to them. To that end, we designed a literature-guided developer survey that we deployed on social media, receiving 170 total responses. We also searched on StackOverflow and analyzed 38 threads relevant to flaky tests, offering a distinct perspective free of any self-reporting bias. Through a mixture of numerical and thematic analyses, this study reveals a number of findings, including (1) developers strongly agree that flaky tests hinder continuous integration; (2) developers who experience flaky tests more often may be more likely to ignore potentially genuine test failures; and (3) developers rate issues in setup and teardown to be the most common causes of flaky tests.","PeriodicalId":119790,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP)","volume":"190 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3510457.3513037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Test cases that pass and fail without changes to the code under test are known as flaky. The past decade has seen increasing research interest in flaky tests, though little attention has been afforded to the views and experiences of software developers. In this study, we utilized a multi-source approach to obtain insights into how developers define flaky tests, their experiences of the impacts and causes of flaky tests, and the actions they take in response to them. To that end, we designed a literature-guided developer survey that we deployed on social media, receiving 170 total responses. We also searched on StackOverflow and analyzed 38 threads relevant to flaky tests, offering a distinct perspective free of any self-reporting bias. Through a mixture of numerical and thematic analyses, this study reveals a number of findings, including (1) developers strongly agree that flaky tests hinder continuous integration; (2) developers who experience flaky tests more often may be more likely to ignore potentially genuine test failures; and (3) developers rate issues in setup and teardown to be the most common causes of flaky tests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查开发人员的片状测试经验
测试用例通过或失败而不更改被测代码被称为片状的。在过去的十年中,人们对片状测试的研究兴趣越来越大,尽管很少有人关注软件开发人员的观点和经验。在本研究中,我们利用多源方法来深入了解开发人员如何定义片状测试,他们对片状测试的影响和原因的经验,以及他们为响应这些测试而采取的行动。为此,我们设计了一份以文献为指导的开发者调查,并将其投放到社交媒体上,共收到170份回复。我们还在StackOverflow上搜索并分析了38个与片状测试相关的线程,提供了一个没有任何自我报告偏见的独特视角。通过数字和主题分析的混合,本研究揭示了一些发现,包括(1)开发人员强烈同意片状测试阻碍持续集成;(2)经常经历不可靠测试的开发人员更有可能忽略潜在的真正的测试失败;(3)开发人员认为安装和拆卸过程中的问题是导致测试不稳定的最常见原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Industry's Cry for Tools that Support Large-Scale Refactoring Code Reviewer Recommendation in Tencent: Practice, Challenge, and Direction* What's bothering developers in code review? The Impact of Flaky Tests on Historical Test Prioritization on Chrome Surveying the Developer Experience of Flaky Tests
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1