Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a software system evolves, its test suite can accumulate redundancies over time. Test minimization aims at removing redundant test cases. However, current techniques remove whole test cases from the test suite using test adequacy criteria, such as code coverage. This has two limitations, namely (1) by removing a whole test case the corresponding test assertions are also lost, which can inhibit test suite effectiveness, (2) the issue of partly redundant test cases — tests with redundant test statements — is ignored. We propose a novel approach for fine-grained test case minimization, which removes redundancies at the test statement level, while preserving the coverage and test assertions of the test suite. Our analysis is based on the inference of a test suite model that enables automated test reorganization within test cases. We evaluated our approach, implemented in a tool called Testler, on the test suites of 15 open source projects. Our analysis revealed that over 4,639 (24%) of the tests in these test suites are partly redundant, with over 11,819 redundant test statements in total. Our results show that Testler removes 43% of the redundant test statements, reducing the number of partly redundant tests by 52%. As a result, test suite execution time is reduced by up to 37% (20% on average), while maintaining the original code coverage, branch coverage, and test assertions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".