MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195404945

Software Batch Testing to Reduce Build Test Executions

2020· dissertation· en· W3195404945 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammad Javad Beheshtian

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsComputer scienceCommitTest (biology)Test caseBisection methodCode coverageReliability engineeringSoftwareProgramming languageAlgorithmDatabaseMachine learningEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing is expensive and batching tests have the potential to reduce test costs. The continuous integration strategy of testing each commit or change individually helps to quickly identify faults but leads to a maximum number of test executions. Large companies that have a large number of commits, e.g. Google and Facebook, or have expensive test infrastructure, e.g. Ericsson, must batch changes together to reduce the number of total test runs. For example, if eight builds are batched together and there is no failure, then we have tested eight builds with one execution saving seven executions. However, when a failure occurs it is not immediately clear which build is the cause of the failure. A bisection is run to isolate the failing build, i.e. the culprit build. In our eight builds example, a failure will require an additional 6 executions, resulting in a saving of one execution. \n \nThe goal of this work is to improve the efficiency of the batch testing. We evaluate six approaches. The first is the baseline approach that tests each build individually. The second, is the existing bisection approach. The third uses a batch size of four, which we show mathematically reduces the number of execution without requiring bisection. The fourth combines the two prior techniques introducing a stopping condition to the bisection. The final two approaches use models \nof build change risk to isolate risky changes and test them in smaller batches. \n \nWe evaluate the approaches on nine open source projects that use Travis CI. Compared to the TestAll baseline, on average, the approaches reduce the number of build test executions across projects by 46%, 48%, 50%, 44%, and 49% for BatchBisect, Batch4, BatchStop4, RiskTopN, and RiskBatch, respectively. The greatest reduction is BatchStop4 at 50%. However, the simple approach of Batch4 does not require bisection and achieves a reduction of 48%. We recommend that \nall CI pipelines use a batch size of at least four. We release our scripts and data for replication. \n \nRegardless of the approach, on average, we save around half the build test executions compared to testing each change individually. We release the BatchBuilder tool that automatically batches submitted changes on GitHub for testing on Travis CI. Since the tool reports individual results for each pull-request or pushed commit, the batching happens in the background and the development process is unchanged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207