Test Transfer Across Mobile Apps Through Semantic Mapping

Lin, Jun-Wei; Jabbarvand, Reyhaneh; Malek, Sam

doi:10.1109/ase.2019.00015

Cited by 47 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GUI Event, or event in short, is a triple comprising (1) an actionable GUI element, (2) an associated action, and (3) an optional input value (e.g., user input for a text box). We reuse this definition from existing work [20,21,25]. For simplicity, we use the label of a GUI element (e.g., a1-1) to refer to the GUI event triple.…”

Section: Motivating Example and Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A target app can reuse the tests from multiple source apps; at the same time, it can serve as a source app to other target apps if it contains known tests. Both source apps and target apps are used extensively in existing work [20,21,25].…”

Section: Motivating Example and Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To reduce the manual effort of writing usage-based tests, recent research has explored reusing existing tests in a source app to generate new tests automatically for a target app [20,21,23,25,28]. The guiding insight is that different apps expose common functionalities via semantically similar GUI elements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four recent techniques have targeted usage-based test reuse across Android apps [20,21,23,25]. 1 While these techniques have shown promise, we have identified five important limitations that hinder their comparability, reproducibility, and reusability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This makes it difficult to isolate and compare their relevant components. For instance, GTM [20], ATM [21], and CraftDroid [25] all contain functionality to compute a łsimilarity scorež between two GUI elements, but it is unclear which of those specific components performs the best against the same baseline. This would impede subsequent research that could potentially benefit from identifying underlying components that should be reused and/or improved.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

FrUITeR: a framework for evaluating UI test reuse

Zhao

Sejfia

Laser

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Softw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Motivating Example and Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivating Example and Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

FrUITeR: a framework for evaluating UI test reuse

Zhao

Sejfia

Laser

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Softw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OAT: An Optimized Android Testing Framework Based on Reinforcement Learning

Song

et al. 2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic matching in GUI test reuse

Khalili,

Mariani,

Mohebbi

et al. 2024

Empir Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reusing test cases across apps that share similar functionalities reduces both the effort required to produce useful test cases and the time to offer reliable apps to the market. The main approaches to reuse test cases across apps combine different semantic matching and test generation algorithms to migrate test cases across apps. In this paper we define a general framework to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of different choices of semantic matching with approaches on migrating test cases across apps. We offer a thorough comparative evaluation of the many possible choices for the components of test migration processes. We propose an approach that combines the most effective choices for each component of the test migration process to obtain an effective approach. We report the results of an experimental evaluation on 8,099 GUI events from 337 test configurations. The results attest the prominent impact of semantic matching on test reuse. They indicate that sentence level perform better than word level embedding techniques. They surprisingly suggest a negligible impact of the corpus of documents used for building the word embedding model for the . They provide evidence that semantic matching of events of selected types perform better than semantic matching of events of all types. They show that the effectiveness of overall approach depends on the characteristics of the test suites and apps. The replication package that we make publicly available online (https://star.inf.usi.ch/#/software-data/11) allows researchers and practitioners to refine the results with additional experiments and evaluate other choices for test reuse components.

show abstract

Test Transfer Across Mobile Apps Through Semantic Mapping

Cited by 47 publications

References 33 publications

FrUITeR: a framework for evaluating UI test reuse

FrUITeR: a framework for evaluating UI test reuse

OAT: An Optimized Android Testing Framework Based on Reinforcement Learning

Semantic matching in GUI test reuse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About