Revisiting Test Impact Analysis in Continuous Testing From the Perspective of Code Dependencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In continuous testing, developers execute automated test cases once or even several times per day to ensure the quality of the integrated code. Although continuous testing helps ensure the quality of the code and reduces maintenance effort, it also significantly increases test execution overhead. In this paper, we empirically evaluate the effectiveness of test impact analysis from the perspective of code dependencies in the continuous testing setting. We first applied test impact analysis to one year of software development history in 11 large-scale open-source systems. We found that even though the number of changed files is small in daily commits (median ranges from 3 to 28 files), around 50 percent or more of the test cases are still impacted and need to be executed. Motivated by our finding, we further studied the code dependencies between source code files and test cases, and among test cases. We found that 1) test cases often focus on testing the integrated behaviour of the systems and 15 percent of the test cases have dependencies with more than 20 source code files; 2) 18 percent of the test cases have dependencies with other test cases, and test case inheritance is the most common cause of test case dependencies; and 3) we documented four dependency-related test smells that we uncovered in our manual study. Our study provides the first step towards studying and understanding the effectiveness of test impact analysis in the continuous testing setting and provides insights on improving test design and execution.
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 | 0.020 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".