Test Smell Detection Tools: A Systematic Mapping Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the dataset that accompanies the study: "Test Smell Detection Tools: A Systematic Mapping Study." This study has been accepted for publication at 2021 The International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE '21). Following is the abstract of the study: Test smells are defined as sub-optimal design choices developers make when implementing test cases. Hence, similar to code smells, the research community has produced numerous test smell detection tools to investigate the impact of test smells on the quality and maintenance of test suites. However, little is known about the characteristics, type of smells, target language, and availability of these published tools. In this paper, we provide a detailed catalog of all known, peer-reviewed, test smell detection tools. We start with performing a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed scientific publications to construct a catalog of 22 tools. Then, we perform a comparative analysis to identify the smell types detected by each tool and other salient features that include programming language, testing framework support, detection strategy, and adoption, among others. From our findings, we discover tools that detect test smells in Java, Scala, Smalltalk, and C++ test suites, with Java support favored by most tools. These tools are available as command-line and IDE plugins, among others. Our analysis also shows that most tools overlap in detecting specific smell types, such as General Fixture. Further, we encounter four types of techniques these tools utilize to detect smells. We envision our study as a one-stop source for researchers and practitioners in determining the tool appropriate for their needs. Our findings also empower the community with information to guide future tool development.
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 | 0.079 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".