回归测试目标-实践者和研究者的观点

N. Minhas, K. Petersen, N. Ali, K. Wnuk
{"title":"回归测试目标-实践者和研究者的观点","authors":"N. Minhas, K. Petersen, N. Ali, K. Wnuk","doi":"10.1109/APSECW.2017.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Regression testing is a well-researched area. However,the majority regression testing techniques proposed by theresearchers are not getting the attention of the practitioners. Communicationgaps between industry and academia and disparity in theregression testing goals are the main reasons. Close collaboration canhelp in bridging the communication gaps and resolving the disparities.Objective: The study aims at exploring the views of academicsand practitioners about the goals of regression testing. The purpose isto investigate the commonalities and differences in their viewpointsand defining some common goals for the success of regression testing.Method: We conducted a focus group study, with 7 testingexperts from industry and academia. 4 testing practitioners from 2companies and 3 researchers from 2 universities participated in thestudy. We followed GQM approach, to elicit the regression testinggoals, information needs, and measures.Results: 43 regression testing goals were identified by theparticipants, which were reduced to 10 on the basis of similarityamong the identified goals. Later during the priority assignmentprocess, 5 goals were discarded, because the priority assigned tothese goals was very low. Participants identified 47 informationneeds/questions required to evaluate the success of regression testingwith reference to goal G5 (confidence). Which were then reduced to10 on the basis of similarity. Finally, we identified measures to gaugethose information needs/questions, which were corresponding to thegoal (G5).Conclusions: We observed that participation level ofpractitioners and researchers during the elicitation of goals andquestions was same. We found a certain level of agreement betweenthe participants regarding the regression testing definitions and goals.But there was some level of disagreement regarding the prioritiesof the goals. We also identified the need to implement a regressiontesting evaluation framework in the participating companies.","PeriodicalId":172357,"journal":{"name":"2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regression Testing Goals - View of Practitioners and Researchers\",\"authors\":\"N. Minhas, K. Petersen, N. Ali, K. Wnuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/APSECW.2017.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Regression testing is a well-researched area. However,the majority regression testing techniques proposed by theresearchers are not getting the attention of the practitioners. Communicationgaps between industry and academia and disparity in theregression testing goals are the main reasons. Close collaboration canhelp in bridging the communication gaps and resolving the disparities.Objective: The study aims at exploring the views of academicsand practitioners about the goals of regression testing. The purpose isto investigate the commonalities and differences in their viewpointsand defining some common goals for the success of regression testing.Method: We conducted a focus group study, with 7 testingexperts from industry and academia. 4 testing practitioners from 2companies and 3 researchers from 2 universities participated in thestudy. We followed GQM approach, to elicit the regression testinggoals, information needs, and measures.Results: 43 regression testing goals were identified by theparticipants, which were reduced to 10 on the basis of similarityamong the identified goals. Later during the priority assignmentprocess, 5 goals were discarded, because the priority assigned tothese goals was very low. Participants identified 47 informationneeds/questions required to evaluate the success of regression testingwith reference to goal G5 (confidence). Which were then reduced to10 on the basis of similarity. Finally, we identified measures to gaugethose information needs/questions, which were corresponding to thegoal (G5).Conclusions: We observed that participation level ofpractitioners and researchers during the elicitation of goals andquestions was same. We found a certain level of agreement betweenthe participants regarding the regression testing definitions and goals.But there was some level of disagreement regarding the prioritiesof the goals. We also identified the need to implement a regressiontesting evaluation framework in the participating companies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":172357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW)\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSECW.2017.23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSECW.2017.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

背景:回归测试是一个研究得很好的领域。然而,大多数由研究者提出的回归测试技术并没有得到实践者的重视。产学研之间的沟通障碍和回归测试目标的差异是主要原因。密切合作有助于弥合沟通差距,解决差异。目的:探讨学术界和实践者对回归检验目标的看法。目的是调查他们观点的共性和差异,并为回归测试的成功定义一些共同的目标。方法:对7名产业界和学术界的检测专家进行焦点小组研究。来自2家公司的4名测试从业者和来自2所大学的3名研究人员参与了本研究。我们遵循GQM方法,引出回归测试目标、信息需求和度量。结果:参与者确定了43个回归测试目标,根据确定的目标之间的相似性将其减少到10个。在稍后的优先级分配过程中,有5个目标被丢弃,因为分配给这些目标的优先级非常低。参与者根据目标G5(信心)确定了评估回归测试成功所需的47个信息需求/问题。然后根据相似度减少到10个。最后,我们确定了衡量这些信息需求/问题的措施,这些措施与目标(G5)相对应。结论:我们观察到从业者和研究者在目标和问题的引出过程中的参与水平是相同的。我们发现参与者对于回归测试的定义和目标有一定程度的共识。但在目标的优先顺序上存在一定程度的分歧。我们还确定了在参与的公司中实现回归测试评估框架的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regression Testing Goals - View of Practitioners and Researchers
Context: Regression testing is a well-researched area. However,the majority regression testing techniques proposed by theresearchers are not getting the attention of the practitioners. Communicationgaps between industry and academia and disparity in theregression testing goals are the main reasons. Close collaboration canhelp in bridging the communication gaps and resolving the disparities.Objective: The study aims at exploring the views of academicsand practitioners about the goals of regression testing. The purpose isto investigate the commonalities and differences in their viewpointsand defining some common goals for the success of regression testing.Method: We conducted a focus group study, with 7 testingexperts from industry and academia. 4 testing practitioners from 2companies and 3 researchers from 2 universities participated in thestudy. We followed GQM approach, to elicit the regression testinggoals, information needs, and measures.Results: 43 regression testing goals were identified by theparticipants, which were reduced to 10 on the basis of similarityamong the identified goals. Later during the priority assignmentprocess, 5 goals were discarded, because the priority assigned tothese goals was very low. Participants identified 47 informationneeds/questions required to evaluate the success of regression testingwith reference to goal G5 (confidence). Which were then reduced to10 on the basis of similarity. Finally, we identified measures to gaugethose information needs/questions, which were corresponding to thegoal (G5).Conclusions: We observed that participation level ofpractitioners and researchers during the elicitation of goals andquestions was same. We found a certain level of agreement betweenthe participants regarding the regression testing definitions and goals.But there was some level of disagreement regarding the prioritiesof the goals. We also identified the need to implement a regressiontesting evaluation framework in the participating companies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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