Root causing, detecting, and fixing flaky tests: State of the art and future roadmap
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
Abstract A flaky test is a test that may lead to different results in different runs on a single code under test without any change in the test code. Test flakiness is a noxious phenomenon that slows down software deployment, and increases the expenditures in a broad spectrum of platforms such as software‐defined networks and Internet of Things environments. Industrial institutes and labs have conducted a whole lot of research projects aiming at tackling this problem. Although this issue has been receiving more attention from academia in recent years, the academic research community is still behind the industry in this area. A systematic review and trend analysis on the existing approaches for detecting and root causing flaky tests can pave the way for future research on this topic. This can help academia keep pace with industrial advancements and even lead the research in this field. This article first presents a comprehensive review of recent achievements of the industry as well as academia regarding the detection and mitigation of flaky tests. In the next step, recent trends in this line of research are analyzed and a roadmap is established for future research.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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