Choosing the Right Test Automation Tool: a Grey Literature Review of Practitioner Sources

Päivi Raulamo-Jurvanen, M. Mäntylä, V. Garousi
{"title":"Choosing the Right Test Automation Tool: a Grey Literature Review of Practitioner Sources","authors":"Päivi Raulamo-Jurvanen, M. Mäntylä, V. Garousi","doi":"10.1145/3084226.3084252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Choosing the right software test automation tool is not trivial, and recent industrial surveys indicate lack of right tools as the main obstacle to test automation. Aim: In this paper, we study how practitioners tackle the problem of choosing the right test automation tool. Method: We synthesize the \"voice\" of the practitioners with a grey literature review originating from 53 different companies. The industry experts behind the sources had roles such as \"Software Test Automation Architect\", and \"Principal Software Engineer\". Results: Common consensus about the important criteria exists but those are not applied systematically. We summarize the scattered steps from individual sources by presenting a comprehensive process for tool evaluation with 12 steps and a total of 14 different criteria for choosing the right tool. Conclusions: The practitioners tend to have general interest in and be influenced by related grey literature as about 78% of our sources had at least 20 backlinks (a reference comparable to a citation) while the variation was between 3 and 759 backlinks. There is a plethora of different software testing tools available, yet the practitioners seem to prefer and adopt the widely known and used tools. The study helps to identify the potential pitfalls of existing processes and opportunities for comprehensive tool evaluation.","PeriodicalId":192290,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","volume":"12 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

Abstract

Background: Choosing the right software test automation tool is not trivial, and recent industrial surveys indicate lack of right tools as the main obstacle to test automation. Aim: In this paper, we study how practitioners tackle the problem of choosing the right test automation tool. Method: We synthesize the "voice" of the practitioners with a grey literature review originating from 53 different companies. The industry experts behind the sources had roles such as "Software Test Automation Architect", and "Principal Software Engineer". Results: Common consensus about the important criteria exists but those are not applied systematically. We summarize the scattered steps from individual sources by presenting a comprehensive process for tool evaluation with 12 steps and a total of 14 different criteria for choosing the right tool. Conclusions: The practitioners tend to have general interest in and be influenced by related grey literature as about 78% of our sources had at least 20 backlinks (a reference comparable to a citation) while the variation was between 3 and 759 backlinks. There is a plethora of different software testing tools available, yet the practitioners seem to prefer and adopt the widely known and used tools. The study helps to identify the potential pitfalls of existing processes and opportunities for comprehensive tool evaluation.
选择正确的测试自动化工具:实践者资源的灰色文献回顾
背景:选择正确的软件测试自动化工具不是一件小事,最近的工业调查表明缺乏正确的工具是测试自动化的主要障碍。目的:在本文中,我们研究了从业者如何解决选择正确的测试自动化工具的问题。方法:我们将从业人员的“声音”与来自53家不同公司的灰色文献综述综合起来。这些资源背后的行业专家拥有诸如“软件测试自动化架构师”和“主要软件工程师”这样的角色。结果:对重要标准有共识,但未系统应用。我们通过提出一个包含12个步骤和总共14个选择正确工具的不同标准的工具评估的综合过程,总结了来自各个来源的分散步骤。结论:从业者倾向于对相关灰色文献有普遍的兴趣,并受到相关灰色文献的影响,因为大约78%的来源至少有20个反向链接(与引文相当的参考文献),而变化在3到759个反向链接之间。有太多不同的软件测试工具可用,但是从业者似乎更喜欢并采用广为人知和使用的工具。该研究有助于识别现有过程的潜在缺陷,并为全面的工具评估提供机会。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信