MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384695884 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15567

Automated Generation of Executable Cucumber Scenarios from a RDBMS Schema

2023· dissertation· en· W4384695884 on OpenAlexaff
Samin Azhan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExecutableComputer scienceRelational database management systemSoftware engineeringRelational databaseJavaProgramming languageSchema evolutionDatabaseSchema (genetic algorithms)Database schemaInformation retrievalDatabase design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acceptance testing addresses the user's expectations for a software system by using scenarios that capture the interactions of such users with that system.To bridge the technical gap between users and developers when discussing the specification and implementation of such scenarios, BDD tools (e.g., Cucumber) were introduced to allow the creation of user-readable scenarios (feature files in Cucumber) and of the corresponding code to make these scenarios executable (Step Definitions in Cucumber).A Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) models in a schema the constraints and inter-relationships of the entities of a software system.Our goal in this thesis is to propose a systematic approach to automatically generate parameterized and executable Cucumber scenarios based on the schema of a relational database.Generating stories pertaining to application-level concepts and their relationships allow early conversations between developers and stakeholders without relying on technical database notions such as fields, data types, constraints etc.Having such stories generated entails they can be easily regenerated as such conversations allow the iterative development of the database schema of the system and having such stories executable ensures the implementation of the entities and constraints specified in this schema can have a small set of corresponding tests automatically applied to it.We implement our generation process in the specific context of Java systems that use the popular frameworks Spring Boot and MySQL.We hope that our approach can be eventually generalized to other frameworks.We discuss at length our work via 2 case studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207