The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2308.01386 · v1 · pith:UTPI5IV7 · submitted 2023-08-02 · cs.SE

Manual Tests Do Smell! Cataloging and Identifying Natural Language Test Smells

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:UTPI5IV7record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.SE
keywords testsmellstestscataloglanguagemanualnaturalresults
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Background: Test smells indicate potential problems in the design and implementation of automated software tests that may negatively impact test code maintainability, coverage, and reliability. When poorly described, manual tests written in natural language may suffer from related problems, which enable their analysis from the point of view of test smells. Despite the possible prejudice to manually tested software products, little is known about test smells in manual tests, which results in many open questions regarding their types, frequency, and harm to tests written in natural language. Aims: Therefore, this study aims to contribute to a catalog of test smells for manual tests. Method: We perform a two-fold empirical strategy. First, an exploratory study in manual tests of three systems: the Ubuntu Operational System, the Brazilian Electronic Voting Machine, and the User Interface of a large smartphone manufacturer. We use our findings to propose a catalog of eight test smells and identification rules based on syntactical and morphological text analysis, validating our catalog with 24 in-company test engineers. Second, using our proposals, we create a tool based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) to analyze the subject systems' tests, validating the results. Results: We observed the occurrence of eight test smells. A survey of 24 in-company test professionals showed that 80.7% agreed with our catalog definitions and examples. Our NLP-based tool achieved a precision of 92%, recall of 95%, and f-measure of 93.5%, and its execution evidenced 13,169 occurrences of our cataloged test smells in the analyzed systems. Conclusion: We contribute with a catalog of natural language test smells and novel detection strategies that better explore the capabilities of current NLP mechanisms with promising results and reduced effort to analyze tests written in different idioms.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.