GUI testing of Android applications: Investigating the impact of the number of testers on different exploratory testing strategies

IF 1.7 4区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Sergio Di Martino, Anna Rita Fasolino, Luigi Libero Lucio Starace, Porfirio Tramontana
{"title":"GUI testing of Android applications: Investigating the impact of the number of testers on different exploratory testing strategies","authors":"Sergio Di Martino,&nbsp;Anna Rita Fasolino,&nbsp;Luigi Libero Lucio Starace,&nbsp;Porfirio Tramontana","doi":"10.1002/smr.2640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Graphical user interface (GUI) testing plays a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and functionality of mobile apps. In this context, exploratory testing (ET), a distinctive methodology in which individual testers pursue a creative, and experience-based approach to test design, is often used as an alternative or in addition to traditional scripted testing. Managing the exploratory testing process is a challenging task that can easily result either in wasteful spending or in inadequate software quality, due to the relative unpredictability of exploratory testing activities, which depend on the skills and abilities of individual testers. A number of works have investigated the diversity of testers' performance when using ET strategies, often in a crowdtesting setting. These works, however, investigated ET effectiveness in detecting bugs, and not in scenarios in which the goal is to generate a re-executable test suite, as well. Moreover, less work has been conducted on evaluating the impact of adopting different exploratory testing strategies. As a first step toward filling this gap in the literature, in this work, we conduct an empirical evaluation involving four open-source Android apps and 20 masters students that we believe can be representative of practitioners partaking in exploratory testing activities. The students were asked to generate test suites for the apps using a capture and replay tool and different exploratory testing strategies. We then compare the effectiveness, in terms of aggregate code coverage that different-sized groups of students using different exploratory testing strategies may achieve. Results provide deeper insights into code coverage dynamics to project managers interested in using exploratory approaches to test simple Android apps, on which they can make more informed decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48898,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Software-Evolution and Process","volume":"36 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/smr.2640","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Software-Evolution and Process","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smr.2640","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Graphical user interface (GUI) testing plays a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and functionality of mobile apps. In this context, exploratory testing (ET), a distinctive methodology in which individual testers pursue a creative, and experience-based approach to test design, is often used as an alternative or in addition to traditional scripted testing. Managing the exploratory testing process is a challenging task that can easily result either in wasteful spending or in inadequate software quality, due to the relative unpredictability of exploratory testing activities, which depend on the skills and abilities of individual testers. A number of works have investigated the diversity of testers' performance when using ET strategies, often in a crowdtesting setting. These works, however, investigated ET effectiveness in detecting bugs, and not in scenarios in which the goal is to generate a re-executable test suite, as well. Moreover, less work has been conducted on evaluating the impact of adopting different exploratory testing strategies. As a first step toward filling this gap in the literature, in this work, we conduct an empirical evaluation involving four open-source Android apps and 20 masters students that we believe can be representative of practitioners partaking in exploratory testing activities. The students were asked to generate test suites for the apps using a capture and replay tool and different exploratory testing strategies. We then compare the effectiveness, in terms of aggregate code coverage that different-sized groups of students using different exploratory testing strategies may achieve. Results provide deeper insights into code coverage dynamics to project managers interested in using exploratory approaches to test simple Android apps, on which they can make more informed decisions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

安卓应用程序的图形用户界面测试:研究测试人员数量对不同探索性测试策略的影响
图形用户界面(GUI)测试在确保移动应用的质量和功能方面起着关键作用。在这种情况下,探索性测试(ET)是一种独特的方法,在这种方法中,单个测试人员追求一种创造性的、基于经验的方法来进行测试设计,它经常被用作传统脚本测试的替代或补充。管理探索性测试过程是一项具有挑战性的任务,由于探索性测试活动的相对不可预测性,它依赖于单个测试人员的技能和能力,因此很容易导致浪费的支出或软件质量的不足。许多研究已经调查了测试者在使用ET策略时表现的多样性,通常是在众测环境中。然而,这些工作调查了ET在检测bug方面的有效性,而不是在以生成可重复执行的测试套件为目标的场景中。此外,在评估采用不同探索性测试策略的影响方面进行的工作较少。作为填补这一文献空白的第一步,在这项工作中,我们对四个开源Android应用程序和20名硕士生进行了实证评估,我们认为这些硕士生可以代表参与探索性测试活动的从业者。学生们被要求使用捕获和重播工具和不同的探索性测试策略为应用程序生成测试套件。然后我们比较有效性,根据使用不同探索性测试策略的不同规模的学生组可能达到的总代码覆盖率。结果为项目经理提供了对代码覆盖动态的更深入的了解,他们对使用探索性方法测试简单的Android应用程序感兴趣,从而可以做出更明智的决策。
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
Journal of Software-Evolution and Process
Journal of Software-Evolution and Process COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING-
自引率
10.00%
发文量
109
×
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