An exploratory study of the state of practice of performance testing in Java-based open source projects
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
The usage of open source (OS) software is nowadays wide- spread across many industries and domains. While the functional quality of OS projects is considered to be up to par with that of closed-source software, much is unknown about the quality in terms of non-functional attributes, such as performance. One challenge for OS developers is that, unlike for functional testing, there is a lack of accepted best practices for performance testing. To reveal the state of practice of performance testing in OS projects, we conduct an exploratory study on 111 Java-based OS projects from GitHub. We study the performance tests of these projects from five perspectives: (1) the developers, (2) size, (3) organization and (4) types of performance tests and (5) the tooling used for performance testing. First, in a quantitative study we show that writing performance tests is not a popular task in OS projects: performance tests form only a small portion of the test suite, are rarely updated, and are usually maintained by a small group of core project developers. Second, we show through a qualitative study that even though many projects are aware that they need performance tests, developers appear to struggle implementing them. We argue that future performance testing frameworks should provider better support for low-friction testing, for instance via non-parameterized methods or performance test generation, as well as focus on a tight integration with standard continuous integration tooling.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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