DOM-based test adequacy criteria for web applications
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
To assess the quality of web application test cases, web developers currently measure code coverage. Although code coverage has traditionally been a popular test adequacy criterion, we believe it alone is not adequate for assessing the quality of web application test cases. We propose a set of novel DOM-based test adequacy criteria for web applications. These criteria aim at measuring coverage at two granularity levels, (1) the percentage of DOM states and transitions covered in the total state space of the web application under test, and (2) the percentage of elements covered in each particular DOM state. We present a technique and tool, called DomCovery, which automatically extracts and measures the proposed adequacy criteria and generates a visual DOM coverage report. Our evaluation shows that there is no correlation between code coverage and DOM coverage. A controlled experiment illustrates that participants using DomCovery completed coverage related tasks 22% more accurately and 66% faster.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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