Prioritizing manual test cases in rapid release environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Test case prioritization is an important testing activity, in practice, specially for large scale systems. The goal is to rank the existing test cases in a way that they detect faults as soon as possible, so that any partial execution of the test suite detects the maximum number of defects for the given budget. Test prioritization becomes even more important when the test execution is time consuming, for example, manual system tests versus automated unit tests. Most existing test case prioritization techniques are based on code coverage, which requires access to source code. However, manual testing is mainly performed in a black‐box manner (manual testers do not have access to the source code). Therefore, in this paper, the existing test case prioritization techniques (e.g. diversity‐based and history‐based techniques) are examined and modified to be applicable on manual black‐box system testing. An empirical study on four older releases of desktop Firefox showed that none of the techniques were strongly dominating the others in all releases. However, when nine more recent releases of desktop Firefox, where the development has been moved from a traditional to a more agile and rapid release environment, were studied, a very significant difference between the history‐based approach and its alternatives was observed. The higher effectiveness of the history‐based approach compared with alternatives also held on 28 additional rapid releases of other Firefox projects – mobile Firefox and tablet Firefox. The conclusion of the paper is that test cases in rapid release environments can be very effectively prioritized for execution, based on their historical failure knowledge. In particular, it is the recency of historical knowledge that explains its effectiveness in rapid release environments rather than other changes in the process. Copyright © 2016 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".