Have Java Production Methods Co-Evolved With Test Methods Properly?: A Fine-Grained Repository-Based Co-Evolution Analysis

Tenma Kitai, Hirohisa Aman, S. Amasaki, Tomoyuki Yokogawa, Minoru Kawahara
{"title":"Have Java Production Methods Co-Evolved With Test Methods Properly?: A Fine-Grained Repository-Based Co-Evolution Analysis","authors":"Tenma Kitai, Hirohisa Aman, S. Amasaki, Tomoyuki Yokogawa, Minoru Kawahara","doi":"10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Any source code of a software product (production code) is expected to be tested to ensure its correct behavior. Whenever a developer updates production code, the developer should also update or create the corresponding test code to check if the updated parts still work correctly. Such a desirable co-evolution relationship between production and test code forms a logical coupling. Although the logical coupling is detectable through an association analysis on the code repository such as Git, the detection granularity is coarse because the conventional repository is at the file level. For observing those logical couplings as precisely as possible, this paper utilizes the finer-grained, Java method-level repository (FinerGit). Then the paper proposes a metric measuring the extent to which a production method has co-evolved with test methods and conducts a case study using ten open-source projects. The results show that most Java methods (98% on average) have co-evolved with test methods, but some have not; The proposed metric helps detect those methods having the potential risk that the developers might not test adequately.","PeriodicalId":269970,"journal":{"name":"2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Any source code of a software product (production code) is expected to be tested to ensure its correct behavior. Whenever a developer updates production code, the developer should also update or create the corresponding test code to check if the updated parts still work correctly. Such a desirable co-evolution relationship between production and test code forms a logical coupling. Although the logical coupling is detectable through an association analysis on the code repository such as Git, the detection granularity is coarse because the conventional repository is at the file level. For observing those logical couplings as precisely as possible, this paper utilizes the finer-grained, Java method-level repository (FinerGit). Then the paper proposes a metric measuring the extent to which a production method has co-evolved with test methods and conducts a case study using ten open-source projects. The results show that most Java methods (98% on average) have co-evolved with test methods, but some have not; The proposed metric helps detect those methods having the potential risk that the developers might not test adequately.
Java生产方法是否与测试方法共同发展?:基于存储库的细粒度协同进化分析
软件产品的任何源代码(产品代码)都需要经过测试以确保其正确的行为。每当开发人员更新产品代码时,开发人员也应该更新或创建相应的测试代码,以检查更新的部分是否仍然正常工作。生产代码和测试代码之间的这种理想的共同演化关系形成了逻辑耦合。尽管可以通过对代码存储库(如Git)的关联分析来检测逻辑耦合,但是检测粒度很粗,因为传统的存储库是在文件级别。为了尽可能精确地观察这些逻辑耦合,本文利用了细粒度的Java方法级存储库(FinerGit)。然后,本文提出了一个度量生产方法与测试方法共同发展程度的度量标准,并使用十个开源项目进行了案例研究。结果表明,大多数Java方法(平均98%)与测试方法共同进化,但有些方法没有;建议的度量有助于检测那些具有开发人员可能没有充分测试的潜在风险的方法。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信