Top

Automated Software Engineering

Published in:

01-05-2024

Regression test selection in test-driven development

Authors: Zohreh Mafi, Seyed-Hassan Mirian-Hosseinabadi

Published in: Automated Software Engineering | Issue 1/2024

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The large number of unit tests produced in the test-driven development (TDD) method and the iterative execution of these tests extend the regression test execution time in TDD. This study aims to reduce test execution time in TDD. We propose a TDD-based approach that creates traceable code elements and connects them to relevant test cases to support regression test selection during the TDD process. Our proposed hybrid technique combines text and syntax program differences to select related test cases using the nature of TDD. We use a change detection algorithm to detect program changes. Our experience is reported with a tool called RichTest, which implements this technique. In order to evaluate our work, seven TDD projects have been developed. The implementation results indicate that the RichTest plugin significantly decreases the number of test executions and also the time of regression testing despite considering the overhead time. The test suite effectively enables fault detection because the selected test cases are related to the modified partitions. Moreover, the test cases cover the entire modified partitions; accordingly, the selection algorithm is safe. The concept is particularly designed for the TDD method. Although this idea is applicable in any programming language, it is already implemented as a plugin in Java Eclipse.

previous article Large language models for qualitative research in software engineering: exploring opportunities and challenges

next article Mining crowd sourcing repositories for open innovation in software engineering

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

https://github.com/MafiZo/RichTest.git.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/.

Logical Structural Diff.

Statements such as synchronized, do, try, for, if, while, and switch.

Simple Theorem Prover.

Code normalization is a semantic-preserving transformation.

Each copy of the program a developer saves. It is not necessarily a new issue/version of the program.

Help → Install New Software, and also should set Window → Preferences as Dependency folder address.

Available from Window → Show View → Other → RichTest.

Available from Window → Preferences → RichTest.

Abstract Syntax Tree.

sw itch, while, if, for, foreach, and try.

result = autorank(data, alpha = 0.05, verbose = False).

Ammann, P., Offutt, J.: Introduction to software testing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRef

Apiwattanapong, T., Orso, A., Harrold, M.J.: JDiff: a differencing technique and tool for object-oriented programs. Autom. Softw. Eng.. Softw. Eng. 14(1), 3–36 (2007)CrossRef

Archambault, D.: Structural differences between two graphs through hierarchies. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface, Kelowna (2009)

Asaduzzaman, M., Roy, C., Schneider, K., Di Penta, M.: LHDiff: a language-independent hybrid approach for tracking source code lines. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Eindhoven (2013)

Astels, D.: Test Driven Development: A Practical Guide. Prentice-Hall/Pearson Education, New Jersey (2003)

Beck, K.: Test Driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)

Beller, M., Georgios, G., Annibale, P.: Developer testing in the ide: patterns, beliefs, and behavior. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.softw. Eng. 45(3), 261–284 (2017)CrossRef

Beningo, J.: Testing, verification, and test-driven development. In: Embedded Software Design: A Practical Approach to Architecture, Processes, and Coding Techniques, pp. 197–218. Apress, Berkeley, CA (2022)

Binkley, D.: Using semantic differencing to reduce the cost of regression testing. In: IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Orlando (1992)

Biswas, S., Mall, R., Satpathy, M., Sukumaran, S.: Regression test selection techniques: a survey. Informatica 35(3), 289–321 (2011)

Borle, N.C., Feghhi, M., Stroulia, E., Greiner, R., Hindle, A.: Analyzing the effects of test driven development in GitHub. Empir. Softw. Eng.. Softw. Eng. 23(4), 1931–1958 (2018)CrossRef

Canfora, G., Cerulo, L., Penta, M.D.: LDiff: an enhanced line differencing tool. In: 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2009)

Cibulski, H., Amiram, Y.: Regression test selection techniques for test-driven development. In: IEEE Fourth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops, Washington (2011)

Dalton, J.: Test-driven development. In: Great Big Agile, pp. 263–264. Apress, Berkeley (2019)

Debin, G., Reiter, M.K., Song, D.: Binhunt: automatically finding semantic differences in binary programs. In: International Conference on Information and Communications Security. Springer, Berlin (2008)

Erdogmus, H., Maurizio, M., Marco, T.: On the effectiveness of the test-first approach to programming. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.softw. Eng. 31(3), 226–237 (2005)CrossRef

Falleri, J., Floréal, M., Xavier, B., Matias, M., Martin, M.: Fine-grained and accurate source code differencing. In: 29th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. Västerås (2014)

Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., Roberts, D.: In: Gamma, E. (ed.) Refactoring: improving the design of existing code. Pearson Education India, Karnataka (1999)

George, B., Williams, L.: A structured experiment of test-driven development. Inf. Softw. Technol.softw. Technol. 46(5), 337–342 (2004)CrossRef

Görg, M., Zhao, J.: Identifying semantic differences in AspectJ programs. In: 18th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ACM), Chicago (2009)

Goto, A., Yoshida, N., Ioka, M., Choi, E., Inoue, K.: How to extract differences from similar programs? A cohesion metric approach. In: 7th International Workshop on Software Clones (IEEE Press), San Francisco (2013)

Herbold, S.: Autorank: a python package for automated ranking of classifiers. J. Open Sour. Softw. 5(48), 2173 (2020)CrossRef

Horwitz, S.: Identifying the semantic and textual differences between two versions of a program. ACM Sigplan 25(6), 234–245 (1990)CrossRef

Hsu, R.: Method for detecting differences between graphical programs‏. U.S. Patent 5,974,254, 26 Oct 1999

Karac, I., Turhan, B.: What do we (really) know about test-driven development? IEEE Softw.softw. 35(4), 81–85 (2018)CrossRef

Khanam, Z., Mohammed, N.A.: Evaluating the effectiveness of test driven development: advantages and pitfalls. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 12(18), 7705–7716 (2017)

Kim, M., David, N.: Discovering and representing systematic code changes. In: IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, Washington (2009)

Legunsen, O., August, S., Darko, M.: STARTS: STAtic regression test selection. In: 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) (2017)

Linares-Vásquez, M., Cortés-Coy, L., Aponte, J., Poshyvanyk, D.: Changescribe: a tool for automatically generating commit messages. In: 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Florence (2015)

Liu, C., Chen, C., Han, J., Yu, P.S.: GPLAG: detection of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis. In: 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. New York (2006)

Madeyski, L., Marcin, K.: Continuous test-driven development—a novel agile software development practice and supporting tool. In: Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE), pp. 260–267

Madeyski, L., Kawalerowicz, M.: Continuous test-driven development: a preliminary empirical evaluation using agile experimentation in industrial settings. Towards Synerg. Combin. Res. Pract. Softw. Eng. 733, 105–118 (2018)CrossRef

Maletic, J.I., Collard, M.L.: Supporting source code difference analysis. In: 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Chicago (2004)

Myers, E.W.: AnO (ND) difference algorithm and its variations. Algorithmica 1(1–4), 251–266 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRef

Neamtiu, I., Foster, J.S., Hicks, M.: Understanding source code evolution using abstract Syntax Tree Matching. Missouri (2005)

Nguyen, H.A., Nguyen, T.T., Nguyen, H.V., Nguyen, T.N.: iDIFF: interaction-based program differencing tool. In: 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Washington (2011)

Nooraei Abadeh, M., Mirian-Hosseinabadi, S.: Delta-based regression testing: a formal framework towards model-driven regression testing. J. Softw. Evol. Process 27(12), 913–952 (2015)CrossRef

Riebisch, M., Farooq, Q., Lehnert, S.: Model-based regression testing: process, challenges and approaches. In: Emerging Technologies for the Evolution and Maintenance of Software Models, Ilmenau, Germany, pp. 254–297. IGI Global (2012)

Rosero, R.H., Gómez, O.S., Rodríguez, G.: 15 Years of software regression testing techniques—a survey. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng.softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 26(05), 675–689 (2016)CrossRef

Rothermel, G., Harrold, M.J.: A safe, efficient regression test selection technique. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 6(2), 173–210 (1997)CrossRef

Rothermel, G., Mary, J.H.: Empirical studies of a safe regression test selection technique. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.softw. Eng. 24(6), 401–419 (1998)CrossRef

Santosh Singh, R., Kumar, S.: An approach for the prediction of number of software faults based on the dynamic selection of learning techniques. IEEE Trans. Reliab.reliab. 68(1), 216–236 (2018)

Shen, J., Sun, X., Li, B., Yang, H., Hu, J.: On automatic summarization of what and why information in source code changes. In: 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Atlanta (2016)

Vokolos, F.I., Frankl, P.: Empirical evaluation of the textual differencing regression testing technique. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (Cat. No. 98CB36272), Bethesda (1998)

Wang, T., Wang, K., Su, X., Ma, P.: Detection of semantically similar code. Front. Comput. Sci. 8(6), 996–1011 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRef

Wang, X., Pollock, L., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Automatic segmentation of method code into meaningful blocks to improve readability. In: 18th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering IEEE, Limerick (2011)

Wolfgang, O: "TDD Kata," 9 12 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.programmingwithwolfgang.com/tdd-kata/. Accessed 8 May 2021

Yang, W.: Identifying syntactic differences between two programs. Softw. Pract. Exp. 21(7), 739–755 (1991)CrossRef

Yoo, S., Mark, H.: Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: a survey. Softw. Test. Verific. Reliab. 22(2), 67–120 (2012)CrossRef

Zhang, L., Hao, D., Zhang, L., Rothermel, G.: Bridging the gap between the total and additional test-case prioritization strategies. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, San Francisco (2013)

Zhu, C., Legunsen, O., Shi, A., Gligoric, M.: A framework for checking regression test selection tools. In: IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Montreal, QC, Canada (2019)

Title: Regression test selection in test-driven development
Authors: Zohreh Mafi
Seyed-Hassan Mirian-Hosseinabadi
Publication date: 01-05-2024
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Automated Software Engineering / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0928-8910
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7535
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-023-00405-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Bash comment generation via data augmentation and semantic-aware CodeBERT

Leveraging privacy profiles to empower users in the digital society

Using model-driven engineering to automate software language translation

MIRROR: multi-objective refactoring recommendation via correlation analysis

An extensive study of the effects of different deep learning models on code vulnerability detection in Python code

Distilled GPT for source code summarization

Premium Partner