{"title":"支持基于图形用户界面的手动回归测试的增强测试：实证研究","authors":"Andreas Bauer, Julian Frattini, Emil Alégroth","doi":"10.1007/s10664-024-10522-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Context</h3><p>Manual graphical user interface (GUI) software testing presents a substantial part of the overall practiced testing efforts, despite various research efforts to further increase test automation. Augmented Testing (AT), a novel approach for GUI testing, aims to aid manual GUI-based testing through a tool-supported approach where an intermediary visual layer is rendered between the system under test (SUT) and the tester, superimposing relevant test information.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objective</h3><p>The primary objective of this study is to gather empirical evidence regarding AT’s efficiency compared to manual GUI-based regression testing. Existing studies involving testing approaches under the AT definition primarily focus on exploratory GUI testing, leaving a gap in the context of regression testing. As a secondary objective, we investigate AT’s benefits, drawbacks, and usability issues when deployed with the demonstrator tool, Scout.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Method</h3><p>We conducted an experiment involving 13 industry professionals, from six companies, comparing AT to manual GUI-based regression testing. These results were complemented by interviews and Bayesian data analysis (BDA) of the study’s quantitative results.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The results of the Bayesian data analysis revealed that the use of AT shortens test durations in 70% of the cases on average, concluding that AT is more efficient. When comparing the means of the total duration to perform all tests, AT reduced the test duration by 36% in total. Participant interviews highlighted nine benefits and eleven drawbacks of AT, while observations revealed four usability issues.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>This study presents empirical evidence of improved efficiency using AT in the context of manual GUI-based regression testing. We further report AT’s benefits, drawbacks, and usability issues. The majority of identified usability issues and drawbacks can be attributed to the tool implementation of AT and, thus, can serve as valuable input for future tool development.</p>","PeriodicalId":11525,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Software Engineering","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Augmented testing to support manual GUI-based regression testing: An empirical study\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Bauer, Julian Frattini, Emil Alégroth\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10664-024-10522-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Context</h3><p>Manual graphical user interface (GUI) software testing presents a substantial part of the overall practiced testing efforts, despite various research efforts to further increase test automation. Augmented Testing (AT), a novel approach for GUI testing, aims to aid manual GUI-based testing through a tool-supported approach where an intermediary visual layer is rendered between the system under test (SUT) and the tester, superimposing relevant test information.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objective</h3><p>The primary objective of this study is to gather empirical evidence regarding AT’s efficiency compared to manual GUI-based regression testing. Existing studies involving testing approaches under the AT definition primarily focus on exploratory GUI testing, leaving a gap in the context of regression testing. As a secondary objective, we investigate AT’s benefits, drawbacks, and usability issues when deployed with the demonstrator tool, Scout.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Method</h3><p>We conducted an experiment involving 13 industry professionals, from six companies, comparing AT to manual GUI-based regression testing. These results were complemented by interviews and Bayesian data analysis (BDA) of the study’s quantitative results.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>The results of the Bayesian data analysis revealed that the use of AT shortens test durations in 70% of the cases on average, concluding that AT is more efficient. When comparing the means of the total duration to perform all tests, AT reduced the test duration by 36% in total. Participant interviews highlighted nine benefits and eleven drawbacks of AT, while observations revealed four usability issues.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>This study presents empirical evidence of improved efficiency using AT in the context of manual GUI-based regression testing. We further report AT’s benefits, drawbacks, and usability issues. The majority of identified usability issues and drawbacks can be attributed to the tool implementation of AT and, thus, can serve as valuable input for future tool development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Empirical Software Engineering\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Empirical Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10522-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10522-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景手动图形用户界面（GUI）软件测试占整个实践测试工作的很大一部分，尽管有各种研究努力进一步提高测试自动化。增强测试（AT）是一种新颖的图形用户界面测试方法，旨在通过一种工具支持的方法来辅助基于图形用户界面的手动测试，在被测系统（SUT）和测试人员之间呈现一个中间可视层，叠加相关的测试信息。涉及 AT 定义下的测试方法的现有研究主要集中在探索性图形用户界面测试上，在回归测试方面留下了空白。作为次要目标，我们研究了 AT 与示范工具 Scout 一起部署时的优点、缺点和可用性问题。方法我们进行了一项实验，来自 6 家公司的 13 位业内专业人士参加了实验，比较了 AT 与基于图形用户界面的手动回归测试。结果贝叶斯数据分析结果显示，使用自动测试平均缩短了 70% 的测试时间，因此自动测试更有效。在比较执行所有测试的总时长的平均值时，自动获取技术总共缩短了 36% 的测试时长。对参与者的访谈强调了 AT 的 9 个优点和 11 个缺点，而观察则发现了 4 个可用性问题。 结论 本研究提供了在基于图形用户界面的手动回归测试中使用 AT 提高效率的经验证据。我们进一步报告了 AT 的优点、缺点和可用性问题。大部分发现的可用性问题和缺点可归因于 AT 工具的实施，因此可作为未来工具开发的宝贵投入。
Augmented testing to support manual GUI-based regression testing: An empirical study
Context
Manual graphical user interface (GUI) software testing presents a substantial part of the overall practiced testing efforts, despite various research efforts to further increase test automation. Augmented Testing (AT), a novel approach for GUI testing, aims to aid manual GUI-based testing through a tool-supported approach where an intermediary visual layer is rendered between the system under test (SUT) and the tester, superimposing relevant test information.
Objective
The primary objective of this study is to gather empirical evidence regarding AT’s efficiency compared to manual GUI-based regression testing. Existing studies involving testing approaches under the AT definition primarily focus on exploratory GUI testing, leaving a gap in the context of regression testing. As a secondary objective, we investigate AT’s benefits, drawbacks, and usability issues when deployed with the demonstrator tool, Scout.
Method
We conducted an experiment involving 13 industry professionals, from six companies, comparing AT to manual GUI-based regression testing. These results were complemented by interviews and Bayesian data analysis (BDA) of the study’s quantitative results.
Results
The results of the Bayesian data analysis revealed that the use of AT shortens test durations in 70% of the cases on average, concluding that AT is more efficient. When comparing the means of the total duration to perform all tests, AT reduced the test duration by 36% in total. Participant interviews highlighted nine benefits and eleven drawbacks of AT, while observations revealed four usability issues.
Conclusion
This study presents empirical evidence of improved efficiency using AT in the context of manual GUI-based regression testing. We further report AT’s benefits, drawbacks, and usability issues. The majority of identified usability issues and drawbacks can be attributed to the tool implementation of AT and, thus, can serve as valuable input for future tool development.
期刊介绍：
Empirical Software Engineering provides a forum for applied software engineering research with a strong empirical component, and a venue for publishing empirical results relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Empirical studies presented here usually involve the collection and analysis of data and experience that can be used to characterize, evaluate and reveal relationships between software development deliverables, practices, and technologies. Over time, it is expected that such empirical results will form a body of knowledge leading to widely accepted and well-formed theories.
The journal also offers industrial experience reports detailing the application of software technologies - processes, methods, or tools - and their effectiveness in industrial settings.
Empirical Software Engineering promotes the publication of industry-relevant research, to address the significant gap between research and practice.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
