Efficient Incremental Code Coverage Analysis for Regression Test Suites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code coverage analysis has been widely adopted in the continuous integration of open-source and industry software repositories to monitor the adequacy of regression test suites. However, computing code coverage can be costly, introducing significant overhead during test execution. Plus, re-collecting code coverage for the entire test suite is usually unnecessary when only a part of the coverage data is affected by code changes. While regression test selection (RTS) techniques exist to select a subset of tests whose behaviors may be affected by code changes, they are not compatible with code coverage analysis techniques -- that is, simply executing RTS-selected tests leads to incorrect code coverage results. In this paper, we present the first incremental code coverage analysis technique, which speeds up code coverage analysis by executing a minimal subset of tests to update the coverage data affected by code changes. We implement our technique in a tool dubbed iJaCoCo, which builds on Ekstazi and JaCoCo -- the state-of-the-art RTS and code coverage analysis tools for Java. We evaluate iJaCoCo on 1,122 versions from 22 open-source repositories and show that iJaCoCo can speed up code coverage analysis time by an average of 1.86x and up to 8.20x compared to JaCoCo.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it