Test smells are sub-optimal design choices in the implementation of test code. As reported by recent studies, their presence might not only negatively affect the comprehension of test suites but can also lead to test cases being less effective in finding bugs in production code. Although significant steps toward understanding test smells, there is still a notable absence of studies assessing their association with software quality.In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the presence of test smells and the change-and defect-proneness of test code, as well as the defect-proneness of the tested production code. To this aim, we collect data on 221 releases of ten software systems and we analyze more than a million test cases to investigate the association of six test smells and their co-occurrence with software quality. Key results of our study include:(i) tests with smells are more change-and defect-prone, (ii) 'Indirect Testing', 'Eager Test', and 'Assertion Roulette' are the most significant smells for change-proneness and, (iii) production code is more defect-prone when tested by smelly tests.

No abstract

C e n t r u m v o o r W i s k u n d e e n I n f o r m a t i c aPredicting Class Testability Using Object-Oriented Metrics ABSTRACT In this paper we investigate factors of the testability of object-oriented software systems. The starting point is given by a study of the literature to obtain both an initial model of testability and existing OO metrics related to testability. Subsequently, these metrics are evaluated by means of two case studies of large Java systems for which JUnit test cases exist. The goal of this paper is to define and evaluate a set of metrics that can be used to assess the testability of the classes of a Java system. ACM Computing Classification

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

C e n t r u m v o o r W i s k u n d e e n I n f o r m a t i c a Software ENgineeringAn Evaluation of Clone Detection Techniques for Identifying Crosscutting Concerns ABSTRACT Code implementing a crosscutting concern is often spread over many different parts of an application. Identifying such code automatically greatly improves both the maintainability and the evolvability of the application. First of all, it allows a developer to more easily find the places in the code that must be changed when the concern changes, and thus makes such changes less time consuming and less prone to errors. Second, it allows a developer to refactor the code, so that it uses modern and more advanced abstraction mechanisms, thereby restoring its modularity. In this paper, we evaluate the suitability of clone detection as a technique for the identification of crosscutting concerns. To that end, we manually identify four specific concerns in an industrial C application, and analyze to what extent clone detection is capable of finding these concerns. We consider our results as a stepping stone toward an automated "concern miner" based on clone detection. ACM Computing Classification

When writing automated unit tests, developers often deal with software artifacts that have several dependencies. In these cases, one has the possibility of either instantiating the dependencies or using mock objects to simulate the dependencies' expected behavior. Even though recent quantitative studies showed that mock objects are widely used in OSS projects, scientific knowledge is still lacking on how and why practitioners use mocks. Such a knowledge is fundamental to guide further research on this widespread practice and inform the design of tools and processes to improve it.The objective of this paper is to increase our understanding of which test dependencies developers (do not) mock and why, as well as what challenges developers face with this practice. To this aim, we create MOCKEXTRACTOR, a tool to mine the usage of mock objects in testing code and employ it to collect data from three OSS projects and one industrial system. Sampling from this data, we manually analyze how more than 2,000 test dependencies are treated. Subsequently, we discuss our findings with developers from these systems, identifying practices, rationales, and challenges. These results are supported by a structured survey with more than 100 professionals. The study reveals that the usage of mocks is highly dependent on the responsibility and the architectural concern of the class. Developers report to frequently mock dependencies that make testing difficult and prefer to not mock classes that encapsulate domain concepts/rules of the system. Among the key challenges, developers report that maintaining the behavior of the mock compatible with the behavior of original class is hard and that mocking increases the coupling between the test and the production code.