测试驱动开发的原型经验评估

A. Geras, Michael R. Smith, James Miller
{"title":"测试驱动开发的原型经验评估","authors":"A. Geras, Michael R. Smith, James Miller","doi":"10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Test driven development (TDD) is a relatively new software development process. On the strength of anecdotal evidence and a number of empirical evaluations, TDD is starting to gain momentum as the primary means of developing software in organizations worldwide. In traditional development, tests are for verification and validation purposes and are built after the target product feature exists. In test-driven development, tests are used for specification purposes in addition to verification and validation. An experiment was devised to investigate the distinction between test-driven development and traditional, test-last development from the perspective of developer productivity and software quality. The results of the experiment indicate that while there is little or no difference in developer productivity in the two processes, there are differences in the frequency of unplanned test failures. This may lead to less debugging and more time spent on forward progress within a development project. As with many new software development technologies however, this requires further study, in particular to determine if the positive results translate into lower total costs of ownership.","PeriodicalId":261807,"journal":{"name":"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"83","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A prototype empirical evaluation of test driven development\",\"authors\":\"A. Geras, Michael R. Smith, James Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357925\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Test driven development (TDD) is a relatively new software development process. On the strength of anecdotal evidence and a number of empirical evaluations, TDD is starting to gain momentum as the primary means of developing software in organizations worldwide. In traditional development, tests are for verification and validation purposes and are built after the target product feature exists. In test-driven development, tests are used for specification purposes in addition to verification and validation. An experiment was devised to investigate the distinction between test-driven development and traditional, test-last development from the perspective of developer productivity and software quality. The results of the experiment indicate that while there is little or no difference in developer productivity in the two processes, there are differences in the frequency of unplanned test failures. This may lead to less debugging and more time spent on forward progress within a development project. As with many new software development technologies however, this requires further study, in particular to determine if the positive results translate into lower total costs of ownership.\",\"PeriodicalId\":261807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"83\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357925\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 83

摘要

测试驱动开发(TDD)是一个相对较新的软件开发过程。根据轶事证据和大量经验评估的力量,TDD开始成为世界范围内组织开发软件的主要手段。在传统的开发中,测试是为了验证和确认目的,并且是在目标产品特性存在之后构建的。在测试驱动的开发中,除了验证和确认之外,测试还用于规范目的。设计了一个实验,从开发人员生产力和软件质量的角度来研究测试驱动开发和传统的最后测试开发之间的区别。实验的结果表明,虽然在这两个过程中开发人员的生产力几乎没有差异,但是在计划外测试失败的频率上存在差异。这可能导致更少的调试和更多的时间花费在开发项目的前进进度上。然而,与许多新的软件开发技术一样,这需要进一步的研究,特别是确定积极的结果是否转化为更低的总拥有成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A prototype empirical evaluation of test driven development
Test driven development (TDD) is a relatively new software development process. On the strength of anecdotal evidence and a number of empirical evaluations, TDD is starting to gain momentum as the primary means of developing software in organizations worldwide. In traditional development, tests are for verification and validation purposes and are built after the target product feature exists. In test-driven development, tests are used for specification purposes in addition to verification and validation. An experiment was devised to investigate the distinction between test-driven development and traditional, test-last development from the perspective of developer productivity and software quality. The results of the experiment indicate that while there is little or no difference in developer productivity in the two processes, there are differences in the frequency of unplanned test failures. This may lead to less debugging and more time spent on forward progress within a development project. As with many new software development technologies however, this requires further study, in particular to determine if the positive results translate into lower total costs of ownership.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信