Machine learning-based test smell detection

IF 3.5 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING Empirical Software Engineering Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI:10.1007/s10664-023-10436-2
Valeria Pontillo, Dario Amoroso d’Aragona, Fabiano Pecorelli, Dario Di Nucci, Filomena Ferrucci, Fabio Palomba
{"title":"Machine learning-based test smell detection","authors":"Valeria Pontillo, Dario Amoroso d’Aragona, Fabiano Pecorelli, Dario Di Nucci, Filomena Ferrucci, Fabio Palomba","doi":"10.1007/s10664-023-10436-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Test smells are symptoms of sub-optimal design choices adopted when developing test cases. Previous studies have proved their harmfulness for test code maintainability and effectiveness. Therefore, researchers have been proposing automated, heuristic-based techniques to detect them. However, the performance of these detectors is still limited and dependent on tunable thresholds. We design and experiment with a novel test smell detection approach based on machine learning to detect four test smells. First, we develop the largest dataset of manually-validated test smells to enable experimentation. Afterward, we train six machine learners and assess their capabilities in within- and cross-project scenarios. Finally, we compare the ML-based approach with state-of-the-art heuristic-based techniques. The key findings of the study report a negative result. The performance of the machine learning-based detector is significantly better than heuristic-based techniques, but none of the learners able to overcome an average F-Measure of 51%. We further elaborate and discuss the reasons behind this negative result through a qualitative investigation into the current issues and challenges that prevent the appropriate detection of test smells, which allowed us to catalog the next steps that the research community may pursue to improve test smell detection techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":11525,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Software Engineering","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10436-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Test smells are symptoms of sub-optimal design choices adopted when developing test cases. Previous studies have proved their harmfulness for test code maintainability and effectiveness. Therefore, researchers have been proposing automated, heuristic-based techniques to detect them. However, the performance of these detectors is still limited and dependent on tunable thresholds. We design and experiment with a novel test smell detection approach based on machine learning to detect four test smells. First, we develop the largest dataset of manually-validated test smells to enable experimentation. Afterward, we train six machine learners and assess their capabilities in within- and cross-project scenarios. Finally, we compare the ML-based approach with state-of-the-art heuristic-based techniques. The key findings of the study report a negative result. The performance of the machine learning-based detector is significantly better than heuristic-based techniques, but none of the learners able to overcome an average F-Measure of 51%. We further elaborate and discuss the reasons behind this negative result through a qualitative investigation into the current issues and challenges that prevent the appropriate detection of test smells, which allowed us to catalog the next steps that the research community may pursue to improve test smell detection techniques.

Abstract Image

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
基于机器学习的测试气味检测
测试气味是开发测试用例时所采用的次优设计选择的表现。以往的研究已经证明了它们对测试代码可维护性和有效性的危害。因此,研究人员提出了基于启发式的自动化技术来检测它们。然而,这些检测器的性能仍然有限,而且依赖于可调整的阈值。我们设计并实验了一种基于机器学习的新型测试气味检测方法,用于检测四种测试气味。首先,我们开发了最大的人工验证测试气味数据集,以便进行实验。然后,我们训练了六种机器学习器,并评估了它们在项目内和跨项目情况下的能力。最后,我们将基于 ML 的方法与最先进的启发式技术进行了比较。研究的主要发现报告了一个负面结果。基于机器学习的检测器的性能明显优于基于启发式的技术,但没有一个学习器能够克服平均 51% 的 F-Measure。我们通过对当前阻碍适当检测测试气味的问题和挑战的定性调查,进一步阐述和讨论了这一负面结果背后的原因,从而为研究界改进测试气味检测技术的下一步工作编制了目录。
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
Empirical Software Engineering
Empirical Software Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
12.20%
发文量
169
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Empirical Software Engineering provides a forum for applied software engineering research with a strong empirical component, and a venue for publishing empirical results relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Empirical studies presented here usually involve the collection and analysis of data and experience that can be used to characterize, evaluate and reveal relationships between software development deliverables, practices, and technologies. Over time, it is expected that such empirical results will form a body of knowledge leading to widely accepted and well-formed theories. The journal also offers industrial experience reports detailing the application of software technologies - processes, methods, or tools - and their effectiveness in industrial settings. Empirical Software Engineering promotes the publication of industry-relevant research, to address the significant gap between research and practice.
期刊最新文献
The effect of data complexity on classifier performance. Reinforcement learning for online testing of autonomous driving systems: a replication and extension study. An empirical study on developers’ shared conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub pull requests and issues Quality issues in machine learning software systems An empirical study of token-based micro commits
×
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