When Testing Meets Code Review: Why and How Developers Review Tests

D. Spadini, M. Aniche, M. Storey, M. Bruntink, Alberto Bacchelli
{"title":"When Testing Meets Code Review: Why and How Developers Review Tests","authors":"D. Spadini, M. Aniche, M. Storey, M. Bruntink, Alberto Bacchelli","doi":"10.1145/3180155.3180192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Automated testing is considered an essential process for ensuring software quality. However, writing and maintaining high-quality test code is challenging and frequently considered of secondary importance. For production code, many open source and industrial software projects employ code review, a well-established software quality practice, but the question remains whether and how code review is also used for ensuring the quality of test code. The aim of this research is to answer this question and to increase our understanding of what developers think and do when it comes to reviewing test code. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze more than 300,000 code reviews, and interviewed 12 developers about how they review test files. This work resulted in an overview of current code reviewing practices, a set of identified obstacles limiting the review of test code, and a set of issues that developers would like to see improved in code review tools. The study reveals that reviewing test files is very different from reviewing production files, and that the navigation within the review itself is one of the main issues developers currently face. Based on our findings, we propose a series of recommendations and suggestions for the design of tools and future research.","PeriodicalId":6560,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"75 1","pages":"677-687"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Automated testing is considered an essential process for ensuring software quality. However, writing and maintaining high-quality test code is challenging and frequently considered of secondary importance. For production code, many open source and industrial software projects employ code review, a well-established software quality practice, but the question remains whether and how code review is also used for ensuring the quality of test code. The aim of this research is to answer this question and to increase our understanding of what developers think and do when it comes to reviewing test code. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze more than 300,000 code reviews, and interviewed 12 developers about how they review test files. This work resulted in an overview of current code reviewing practices, a set of identified obstacles limiting the review of test code, and a set of issues that developers would like to see improved in code review tools. The study reveals that reviewing test files is very different from reviewing production files, and that the navigation within the review itself is one of the main issues developers currently face. Based on our findings, we propose a series of recommendations and suggestions for the design of tools and future research.
当测试遇到代码审查时:开发人员为什么以及如何审查测试
自动化测试被认为是确保软件质量的基本过程。然而,编写和维护高质量的测试代码是具有挑战性的,并且经常被认为是次要的。对于产品代码,许多开放源码和工业软件项目采用代码审查,这是一种完善的软件质量实践,但是问题仍然是是否以及如何使用代码审查来确保测试代码的质量。这项研究的目的是回答这个问题,并增加我们对开发人员在审查测试代码时的想法和行为的理解。我们使用定量和定性的方法来分析超过300,000个代码评审,并采访了12位开发人员,了解他们是如何评审测试文件的。这项工作产生了对当前代码审查实践的概述,一组确定的限制测试代码审查的障碍,以及一组开发人员希望在代码审查工具中看到改进的问题。研究表明,审查测试文件与审查生产文件非常不同,并且审查本身的导航是开发人员当前面临的主要问题之一。基于我们的发现,我们对工具的设计和未来的研究提出了一系列建议和建议。
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