Evolution of the Practice of Software Testing in Java Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software testing helps developers minimize bugs and errors in their code, improving the overall software quality. In 2013, Kochhar et al. analyzed 20,817 software projects in order to study how prevalent the practice of software testing is in open-source projects. They found that projects with more lines of code (LOC) and projects with more developers tend to have more test cases. Additionally, they found a weak positive correlation between the number of test cases and the number of bugs. Since the conclusions of a study might become irrelevant over time because of the latest practices in the relevant fields, in this paper, we investigate if these conclusions remain valid if we re-evaluate Kochhar et al.’s findings on the Java projects that were developed from 2012 to 2021. For evaluation, we use a random sample of 20,000 open-source Java projects each year. Our results show that Kochhar et al.’s conclusions regarding the projects with test cases having more LOC, the weak positive correlation between the number of test cases and authors, and the weak positive correlation between the number of test cases and bugs remain stable until 2021. Our study corroborates Kochhar et al.’s conclusions and helps developers refocus in light of the latest findings regarding the practice of software testing.
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 | 0.029 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".