基于信息检索技术的自动测试气味检测

Fabio Palomba, A. Zaidman, A. D. Lucia
{"title":"基于信息检索技术的自动测试气味检测","authors":"Fabio Palomba, A. Zaidman, A. D. Lucia","doi":"10.1109/ICSME.2018.00040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Software testing is a key activity to control the reliability of production code. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of test cases can be threatened by the presence of faults. Recent work showed that static indicators can be exploited to identify test-related issues. In particular test smells, i.e., sub-optimal design choices applied by developers when implementing test cases, have been shown to be related to test case effectiveness. While some approaches for the automatic detection of test smells have been proposed so far, they generally suffer of poor performance: as a consequence, current detectors cannot properly provide support to developers when diagnosing the quality of test cases. In this paper, we aim at making a step ahead toward the automated detection of test smells by devising a novel textual-based detector, coined TASTE (Textual AnalySis for Test smEll detection), with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of textual analysis for detecting three test smell types, General Fixture, Eager Test, and Lack of Cohesion of Methods. We evaluate TASTE in an empirical study that involves a manually-built dataset composed of 494 test smell instances belonging to 12 software projects, comparing the capabilities of our detector with those of two code metrics-based techniques proposed by Van Rompaey et al. and Greiler et al. Our results show that the structural-based detection applied by existing approaches cannot identify most of the test smells in our dataset, while TASTE is up to 44% more effective. Finally, we find that textual and structural approaches can identify different sets of test smells, thereby indicating complementarity.","PeriodicalId":6572,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)","volume":"29 1","pages":"311-322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"61","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automatic Test Smell Detection Using Information Retrieval Techniques\",\"authors\":\"Fabio Palomba, A. Zaidman, A. D. Lucia\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICSME.2018.00040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Software testing is a key activity to control the reliability of production code. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of test cases can be threatened by the presence of faults. Recent work showed that static indicators can be exploited to identify test-related issues. In particular test smells, i.e., sub-optimal design choices applied by developers when implementing test cases, have been shown to be related to test case effectiveness. While some approaches for the automatic detection of test smells have been proposed so far, they generally suffer of poor performance: as a consequence, current detectors cannot properly provide support to developers when diagnosing the quality of test cases. In this paper, we aim at making a step ahead toward the automated detection of test smells by devising a novel textual-based detector, coined TASTE (Textual AnalySis for Test smEll detection), with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of textual analysis for detecting three test smell types, General Fixture, Eager Test, and Lack of Cohesion of Methods. We evaluate TASTE in an empirical study that involves a manually-built dataset composed of 494 test smell instances belonging to 12 software projects, comparing the capabilities of our detector with those of two code metrics-based techniques proposed by Van Rompaey et al. and Greiler et al. Our results show that the structural-based detection applied by existing approaches cannot identify most of the test smells in our dataset, while TASTE is up to 44% more effective. Finally, we find that textual and structural approaches can identify different sets of test smells, thereby indicating complementarity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"311-322\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"61\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2018.00040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2018.00040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 61

摘要

软件测试是控制产品代码可靠性的关键活动。不幸的是,测试用例的有效性可能会受到错误存在的威胁。最近的工作表明,静态指标可以用来确定与测试有关的问题。在特定的测试气味中,例如,开发人员在实现测试用例时应用的次优设计选择,已经被证明与测试用例的有效性相关。虽然到目前为止已经提出了一些自动检测测试气味的方法,但它们的性能通常很差:因此,当前的检测器在诊断测试用例的质量时不能正确地为开发人员提供支持。在本文中,我们的目标是通过设计一种新的基于文本的检测器,在测试气味的自动检测方面向前迈进一步,创造了TASTE(测试气味检测的文本分析),目的是评估文本分析在检测三种测试气味类型(通用夹具,热切测试和缺乏凝聚力的方法)方面的有用性。我们在一项实证研究中评估了TASTE,该研究涉及一个人工构建的数据集,该数据集由属于12个软件项目的494个测试气味实例组成,并将我们的检测器的能力与Van Rompaey等人和Greiler等人提出的两种基于代码度量的技术进行了比较。我们的结果表明,现有方法应用的基于结构的检测不能识别我们数据集中的大多数测试气味,而TASTE的效率高达44%。最后,我们发现文本和结构方法可以识别不同的测试气味集,从而表明互补性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Automatic Test Smell Detection Using Information Retrieval Techniques
Software testing is a key activity to control the reliability of production code. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of test cases can be threatened by the presence of faults. Recent work showed that static indicators can be exploited to identify test-related issues. In particular test smells, i.e., sub-optimal design choices applied by developers when implementing test cases, have been shown to be related to test case effectiveness. While some approaches for the automatic detection of test smells have been proposed so far, they generally suffer of poor performance: as a consequence, current detectors cannot properly provide support to developers when diagnosing the quality of test cases. In this paper, we aim at making a step ahead toward the automated detection of test smells by devising a novel textual-based detector, coined TASTE (Textual AnalySis for Test smEll detection), with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of textual analysis for detecting three test smell types, General Fixture, Eager Test, and Lack of Cohesion of Methods. We evaluate TASTE in an empirical study that involves a manually-built dataset composed of 494 test smell instances belonging to 12 software projects, comparing the capabilities of our detector with those of two code metrics-based techniques proposed by Van Rompaey et al. and Greiler et al. Our results show that the structural-based detection applied by existing approaches cannot identify most of the test smells in our dataset, while TASTE is up to 44% more effective. Finally, we find that textual and structural approaches can identify different sets of test smells, thereby indicating complementarity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Studying the Impact of Policy Changes on Bug Handling Performance Test Re-Prioritization in Continuous Testing Environments Threats of Aggregating Software Repository Data Studying Permission Related Issues in Android Wearable Apps NLP2API: Query Reformulation for Code Search Using Crowdsourced Knowledge and Extra-Large Data Analytics
×
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