Validating pragmatic reuse tasks by leveraging existing test suites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Traditional industrial practice often involves the ad hoc reuse of source code that was not designed for that reuse. Such pragmatic reuse tasks play an important role in disciplined software development. Pragmatic reuse has been seen as problematic due to a lack of systematic support, and an inability to validate that the reused code continues to operate correctly within the target system. Although recent work has successfully systematized support for pragmatic reuse tasks, the issue of validation remains unaddressed. In this paper, we present a novel approach and tool to semi‐automatically reuse and transform relevant portions of the test suite associated with pragmatically reused code, as a means to validate that the relevant constraints from the originating system continue to hold, while minimizing the burden on the developer. We conduct a formal experiment with experienced developers, to compare the application of our approach versus the use of a standard IDE (the ‘manual approach’). We find that, relative to the manual approach, our approach: reduces task completion time; improves instruction coverage by the reused test cases; and improves the correctness of the reused test cases. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it