Hearing the voice of experts: Unveiling Stack Exchange communities’ knowledge of test smells

L. Martins, Denivan Campos, Railana Santana, Joselito Mota Junior, Heitor A. X. Costa, Ivan Machado
{"title":"Hearing the voice of experts: Unveiling Stack Exchange communities’ knowledge of test smells","authors":"L. Martins, Denivan Campos, Railana Santana, Joselito Mota Junior, Heitor A. X. Costa, Ivan Machado","doi":"10.1109/CHASE58964.2023.00017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Refactorings are transformations to improve the code design without changing overall functionality and observable behavior. During the refactoring process of smelly test code, practitioners may struggle to identify refactoring candidates and define and apply corrective strategies. This paper reports on an empirical study aimed at understanding how test smells and test refactorings are discussed on the Stack Exchange network. Developers commonly count on Stack Exchange to pick the brains of the wise, i.e., to ‘look up’ how others are completing similar tasks. Therefore, in light of data from the Stack Exchange discussion topics, we could examine how developers understand and perceive test smells, the corrective actions they take to handle them, and the challenges they face when refactoring test code aiming to fix test smells. We observed that developers are interested in others’ perceptions and hands-on experience handling test code issues. Besides, there is a clear indication that developers often ask whether test smells or anti-patterns are either good or bad testing practices than code-based refactoring recommendations.","PeriodicalId":120979,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE)","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE58964.2023.00017","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

Refactorings are transformations to improve the code design without changing overall functionality and observable behavior. During the refactoring process of smelly test code, practitioners may struggle to identify refactoring candidates and define and apply corrective strategies. This paper reports on an empirical study aimed at understanding how test smells and test refactorings are discussed on the Stack Exchange network. Developers commonly count on Stack Exchange to pick the brains of the wise, i.e., to ‘look up’ how others are completing similar tasks. Therefore, in light of data from the Stack Exchange discussion topics, we could examine how developers understand and perceive test smells, the corrective actions they take to handle them, and the challenges they face when refactoring test code aiming to fix test smells. We observed that developers are interested in others’ perceptions and hands-on experience handling test code issues. Besides, there is a clear indication that developers often ask whether test smells or anti-patterns are either good or bad testing practices than code-based refactoring recommendations.
聆听专家的声音:揭示Stack Exchange社区对测试气味的了解
重构是在不改变整体功能和可观察行为的情况下改进代码设计的转换。在有臭味的测试代码的重构过程中,从业者可能会努力确定重构候选,并定义和应用纠正策略。本文报告了一项旨在了解如何在Stack Exchange网络上讨论测试气味和测试重构的实证研究。开发人员通常依靠Stack Exchange来获取聪明人的智慧,即“查看”其他人是如何完成类似任务的。因此,根据Stack Exchange讨论主题的数据,我们可以检查开发人员如何理解和感知测试气味,他们为处理这些气味而采取的纠正措施,以及他们在重构测试代码以修复测试气味时面临的挑战。我们观察到开发人员对其他人的看法和处理测试代码问题的实际经验感兴趣。此外,有一个明确的迹象表明,开发人员经常会问,与基于代码的重构建议相比,测试气味或反模式是好是坏的测试实践。
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