Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Parallel Test Prioritization

Published: 28 September 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Although regression testing is important to guarantee the software quality in software evolution, it suffers from the widely known cost problem. To address this problem, existing researchers made dedicated efforts on test prioritization, which optimizes the execution order of tests to detect faults earlier; while practitioners in industry leveraged more computing resources to save the time cost of regression testing. By combining these two orthogonal solutions, in this article, we define the problem of parallel test prioritization, which is to conduct test prioritization in the scenario of parallel test execution to reduce the cost of regression testing.
Different from traditional sequential test prioritization, parallel test prioritization aims at generating a set of test sequences, each of which is allocated in an individual computing resource and executed in parallel. In particular, we propose eight parallel test prioritization techniques by adapting the existing four sequential test prioritization techniques, by including and excluding testing time in prioritization.
To investigate the performance of the eight parallel test prioritization techniques, we conducted an extensive study on 54 open-source projects and a case study on 16 commercial projects from Baidu, a famous search service provider with 600M monthly active users. According to the two studies, parallel test prioritization does improve the efficiency of regression testing, and cost-aware additional parallel test prioritization technique significantly outperforms the other techniques, indicating that this technique is a good choice for practical parallel testing. Besides, we also investigated the influence of two external factors, the number of computing resources and time allowed for parallel testing, and find that more computing resources indeed improve the performance of parallel test prioritization. In addition, we investigated the influence of two more factors, test granularity and coverage criterion, and find that parallel test prioritization can still accelerate regression testing in parallel scenario. Moreover, we investigated the benefit of parallel test prioritization on the regression testing process of continuous integration, considering both the cumulative acceleration performance and the overhead of prioritization techniques, and the results demonstrate the superiority of parallel test prioritization.

References

[1]
James H. Andrews, Lionel C. Briand, and Yvan Labiche. 2005. Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 402–411.
[2]
Cagatay Catal and Deepti Mishra. 2013. Test case prioritization: A systematic mapping study. Software Quality Journal 21, 3 (2013), 445–478.
[3]
Junjie Chen. 2018. Learning to accelerate compiler testing. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceeedings. 472–475.
[4]
Junjie Chen, Yanwei Bai, Dan Hao, Yingfei Xiong, Hongyu Zhang, and Bing Xie. 2017. Learning to prioritize test programs for compiler testing. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 700–711.
[5]
Junjie Chen, Yanwei Bai, Dan Hao, Yingfei Xiong, Hongyu Zhang, Lu Zhang, and Bing Xie. 2016. Test case prioritization for compilers: A text-vector based approach. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE Computer Society, 266–277.
[6]
Junjie Chen, Yanwei Bai, Dan Hao, Yingfei Xiong, Hongyu Zhang, Lu Zhang, and Bing Xie. 2016. Test case prioritization for compilers: A text-vector based approach. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE, 266–277.
[7]
Junjie Chen, Yanwei Bai, Dan Hao, Lingming Zhang, Lu Zhang, and Bing Xie. 2017. How do assertions impact coverage-based test-suite reduction? In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. 418–423.
[8]
Junjie Chen, Yiling Lou, Lingming Zhang, Jianyi Zhou, Xiaoleng Wang, Dan Hao, and Lu Zhang. 2018. Optimizing test prioritization via test distribution analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 656–667.
[9]
Junjie Chen, Guancheng Wang, Dan Hao, Yingfei Xiong, Hongyu Zhang, Lu Zhang, and Bing Xie. 2021. Coverage prediction for accelerating compiler testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 2 (2021), 261–278.
[10]
Junjie Chen, Zhuo Wu, Zan Wang, Hanmo You, Lingming Zhang, and Ming Yan. 2020. Practical accuracy estimation for efficient deep neural network testing. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 29, 4 (2020), 1–35.
[11]
Pavan Kumar Chittimalli and Mary Jean Harrold. 2009. Recomputing coverage information to assist regression testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 4 (2009), 452–469.
[12]
Hyunsook Do, Siavash Mirarab, Ladan Tahvildari, and Gregg Rothermel. 2010. The effects of time constraints on test case prioritization: A series of controlled experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36, 5 (2010), 593–617.
[13]
Hyunsook Do and Gregg Rothermel. 2006. On the use of mutation faults in empirical assessments of test case prioritization techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32, 9 (2006), 733–752.
[14]
Sebastian Elbaum, Alexey Malishevsky, and Gregg Rothermel. 2001. Incorporating varying test costs and fault severities into test case prioritization. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 329–338.
[15]
Sebastian Elbaum, Gregg Rothermel, and John Penix. 2014. Techniques for improving regression testing in continuous integration development environments. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 235–245.
[16]
Emelie Engström, Per Runeson, and Mats Skoglund. 2010. A systematic review on regression test selection techniques. Information & Software Technology 52, 1 (2010), 14–30.
[17]
Michael G. Epitropakis, Shin Yoo, Mark Harman, and Edmund K. Burke. 2015. Empirical evaluation of Pareto efficient multi-objective regression test case prioritisation. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, 234–245.
[18]
Hamed Esfahani, Jonas Fietz, Qi Ke, Alexei Kolomiets, Erica Lan, Erik Mavrinac, Wolfram Schulte, Newton Sanches, and Srikanth Kandula. 2016. CloudBuild: Microsoft's distributed and caching build service. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion. ACM, 11–20.
[19]
Peter E. Morris, Fritz, Catherine O., and Jennifer J. Richler. 2012. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141, 1 (2012), 2–18.
[20]
Ronald L. Graham. 1966. Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies. Bell System Technical Journal 45, 9 (1966), 1563–1581.
[21]
Todd L. Graves, Mary Jean Harrold, Jung-Min Kim, Adam A. Porter, and Gregg Rothermel. 1998. An empirical study of regression test selection techniques. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.188–197.
[22]
Pooja Gupta, Mark Ivey, and John Penix. 2011. Testing at the speed and scale of Google. Google Engineering Tools Blog. http://google-engtools.blogspot.com/2011/06/testing-at-speed-and-scale-of-google.html.
[23]
Florian Haftmann, Donald Kossmann, and Eric Lo. 2005. Parallel execution of test runs for database application systems. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. Klemens Böhm, Christian S. Jensen, Laura M. Haas, Martin L. Kersten, Per-Åke Larson, and Beng Chin Ooi (Eds.), ACM, 589–600.
[24]
Florian Haftmann, Donald Kossmann, and Eric Lo. 2007. A framework for efficient regression tests on database applications. The VLDB Journal 16, 1 (2007), 145–164.
[25]
Dan Hao, Lu Zhang, and Hong Mei. 2016. Test-case prioritization: Achievements and challenges. Frontiers of Computer Science 10, 5 (2016), 769–777.
[26]
Dan Hao, Lu Zhang, Lei Zang, Yanbo Wang, Xingxia Wu, and Tao Xie. 2016. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42, 5 (2016), 490–505.
[27]
Dan Hao, Lingming Zhang, Lu Zhang, Gregg Rothermel, and Hong Mei. 2014. A unified test case prioritization approach. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 24, 2 (2014), 1–31.
[28]
Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, Mark Harman, Yue Jia, and Yves Le Traon. 2016. Comparing white-box and black-box test prioritization. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 523–534.
[29]
Bo Jiang and Wing Kwong Chan. 2015. Input-based adaptive randomized test case prioritization: A local beam search approach. Journal of Systems and Software 105, C (2015), 91–106.
[30]
Bo Jiang, Zhenyu Zhang, Wing Kwong Chan, and T. H. Tse. 2009. Adaptive random test case prioritization. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 233–244.
[31]
René Just, Darioush Jalali, Laura Inozemtseva, Michael D. Ernst, Reid Holmes, and Gordon Fraser. 2014. Are mutants a valid substitute for real faults in software testing? In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering.Shing-Chi Cheung, Alessandro Orso, and Margaret-Anne D. Storey (Eds.), ACM, 654–665.
[32]
Cem Kaner. 1997. Improving the maintainability of automated test suites. International Software Quality Week. http://www.kaner.com/pdfs/autosqa.pdf.
[33]
Chang Hwan Peter Kim, Darko Marinov, Sarfraz Khurshid, Don Batory, Sabrina Souto, Paulo Barros, and Marcelo d'Amorim. 2013. SPLat: Lightweight dynamic analysis for reducing combinatorics in testing configurable systems. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 257–267.
[34]
Ashish Kumar. 2010. Development at the speed and scale of Google. Int. Softw. Develop. Conf. Presentation slides are available at: qconsf.com/sf2010/. [Online]. Available: Presentation slides are available at: https://qconsf.com/sf2010/.
[35]
Jung-Hyun Kwon, In-Young Ko, Gregg Rothermel, and Matt Staats. 2014. Test case prioritization based on information retrieval concepts. In 21st Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. Sungdeok (Steve) Cha, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, and Gihwon Kwon (Eds.), IEEE Computer Society, 19–26.
[36]
Wing Lam, Reed Oei, August Shi, Darko Marinov, and Tao Xie. 2019. iDFlakies: A framework for detecting and partially classifying flaky tests. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification. IEEE, 312–322.
[37]
Jan Karel Lenstra, David B. Shmoys, and Eva Tardos. 1990. Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines. Mathematical Programming 46, 1–3 (1990), 259–271.
[38]
Zheng Li, Yi Bian, Ruilian Zhao, and Jun Cheng. 2013. A fine-grained parallel multi-objective test case prioritization on gpu. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering. Springer, 111–125.
[39]
Zheng Li, Mark Harman, and Robert M. Hierons. 2007. Search algorithms for regression test case prioritization. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33, 4 (2007), 225–237.
[40]
Jingjing Liang, Sebastian Elbaum, and Gregg Rothermel. 2018. Redefining prioritization: Continuous prioritization for continuous integration. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 688–698.
[41]
Yiling Lou, Junjie Chen, Lingming Zhang, and Dan Hao. 2019. A survey on regression test-case prioritization. In Advances in Computers. Vol. 113, Atif M. Memon (Eds.). Elsevier, 1–46.
[42]
Yiling Lou, Dan Hao, and Lu Zhang. 2015. Mutation-based test-case prioritization in software evolution. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE, 46–57.
[43]
Yafeng Lu, Yiling Lou, Shiyang Cheng, Lingming Zhang, Dan Hao, Yangfan Zhou, and Lu Zhang. 2016. How does regression test prioritization perform in real-world software evolution? In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 535–546.
[44]
Qingzhou Luo, Farah Hariri, Lamyaa Eloussi, and Darko Marinov. 2014. An empirical analysis of flaky tests. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. Shing-Chi Cheung, Alessandro Orso, and Margaret-Anne D. Storey (Eds.), ACM, 643–653.
[45]
Qi Luo, Kevin Moran, Lingming Zhang, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2018. How do static and dynamic test case prioritization techniques perform on modern software systems? An extensive study on GitHub projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 45, 11 (2018), 1054–1080.
[46]
Qi Luo, Kevin Moran, Lingming Zhang, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2018. How do static and dynamic test case prioritization techniques perform on modern software systems? An extensive study on GitHub projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 45, 11 (2018), 1054–1080.
[47]
Alexey G. Malishevsky, Joseph R. Ruthruff, Gregg Rothermel, and Sebastian Elbaum. 2006. Cost-Cognizant Test Case Prioritization. Technical Report TR-UNL-CSE-2006-0004. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
[48]
Hong Mei, Dan Hao, Lingming Zhang, Lu Zhang, Ji Zhou, and Gregg Rothermel. 2012. A static approach to prioritizing JUnit test cases. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 6 (2012), 1258–1275.
[49]
J. Micco. 2012. Tools for continuous integration at Google scale. Google Tech Talk, Google Inc. Presentation video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH2_sB1A6lA.
[50]
Breno Miranda, Emilio Cruciani, Roberto Verdecchia, and Antonia Bertolino. 2018. FAST approaches to scalable similarity-based test case prioritization. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. 222–232.
[51]
Sasa Misailovic, Aleksandar Milicevic, Nemanja Petrovic, Sarfraz Khurshid, and Darko Marinov. 2007. Parallel test generation and execution with Korat. In Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. Ivica Crnkovic and Antonia Bertolino (Eds.), ACM, 135–144.
[52]
Tanzeem Bin Noor and Hadi Hemmati. 2015. A similarity-based approach for test case prioritization using historical failure data. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 58–68.
[53]
Dario Di Nucci, Annibale Panichella, Andy Zaidman, and Andrea De Lucia. 2020. A test case prioritization genetic algorithm guided by the hypervolume indicator. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46, 6 (2020), 674–696.
[54]
Prem Parashar, Arvind Kalia, and Rajesh Bhatia. 2012. Pair-wise time-aware test case prioritization for regression testing. In Information Systems, Technology and Management. Sumeet Dua, Aryya Gangopadhyay, Parimala Thulasiraman, Umberto Straccia, Michael A. Shepherd, and Benno Stein (Eds.), Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 285. Springer, 176–186.
[55]
G. Rothermel and M. J. Harrold. 1996. Analyzing regression test selection techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22, 8 (Aug 1996), 529–551.
[56]
Gregg Rothermel and Mary Jean Harrold. 1997. A safe, efficient regression test selection technique. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6, 2 (1997), 173–210.
[57]
Gregg Rothermel, Roland H. Untch, Chengyun Chu, and Mary Jean Harrold. 1999. Test case prioritization: An empirical study. In Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE, 179–188.
[58]
Gregg Rothermel, Roland H. Untch, Chengyun Chu, and Mary Jean Harrold. 2001. Prioritizing test cases for regression testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27, 10 (2001), 929–948.
[59]
Ripon K. Saha, Lingming Zhang, Sarfraz Khurshid, and Dewayne E. Perry. 2015. An information retrieval approach for regression test prioritization based on program changes. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering. Antonia Bertolino, Gerardo Canfora, and Sebastian G. Elbaum (Eds.), Vol. 1, IEEE Computer Society, 268–279.
[60]
S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika 52, 3 (1965), 591–599.
[61]
August Shi, Jonathan Bell, and Darko Marinov. 2019. Mitigating the effects of flaky tests on mutation testing. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. Dongmei Zhang and Anders Møller (Eds.), ACM, 112–122.
[62]
August Shi, Alex Gyori, Milos Gligoric, Andrey Zaytsev, and Darko Marinov. 2014. Balancing trade-offs in test-suite reduction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. Shing-Chi Cheung, Alessandro Orso, and Margaret-Anne D. Storey (Eds.), ACM, 246–256.
[63]
August Shi, Peiyuan Zhao, and Darko Marinov. 2019. Understanding and improving regression test selection in continuous integration. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. Katinka Wolter, Ina Schieferdecker, Barbara Gallina, Michel Cukier, Roberto Natella, Naghmeh Ramezani Ivaki, and Nuno Laranjeiro (Eds.), IEEE, 228–238.
[64]
Seung Yeob Shin, Shiva Nejati, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Lionel C. Briand, and Frank Zimmer. 2018. Test case prioritization for acceptance testing of cyber physical systems: A multi-objective search-based approach. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, 49–60.
[65]
Stephen W. Thomas, Hadi Hemmati, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Dorothea Blostein. 2014. Static test case prioritization using topic models. Empirical Software Engineering 19, 1 (2014), 182–212.
[66]
Maciej Tomczak and Tomczak Ewa. 2014. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences 1, 21 (2014), 19–25.
[67]
Kristen R. Walcott, Mary Lou Soffa, Gregory M. Kapfhammer, and Robert S. Roos. 2006. Time-aware test suite prioritization. In Proceedings of the ACM/SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis.
[68]
Song Wang, Jaechang Nam, and Lin Tan. 2017. QTEP: Quality-aware test case prioritization. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 523–534.
[69]
Zan Wang, Hanmo You, Junjie Chen, Yingyi Zhang, Xuyuan Dong, and Wenbin Zhang. 2021. Prioritizing test inputs for deep neural networks via mutation analysis. In Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering. 397–409.
[70]
Frank Wilcoxon. 1992. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In Breakthroughs in Statistics. S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Springer Series in Statistics (Perspectives in Statistics), Springer, 196–202.
[71]
Shin Yoo and Mark Harman. 2012. Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: A survey. Software Testing, Verification & Reliability 22, 2 (2012), 67–120.
[72]
Shin Yoo, Robert Nilsson, and Mark Harman. 2011. Faster fault finding at Google using multi objective regression test optimisation. In Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering.
[73]
Jie Zhang, Lingming Zhang, Mark Harman, Dan Hao, Yue Jia, and Lu Zhang. 2019. Predictive mutation testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 45, 9 (2019), 898–918.
[74]
Lu Zhang, Shan-Shan Hou, Chao Guo, Tao Xie, and Hong Mei. 2009. Time-aware test-case prioritization using integer linear programming. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. Gregg Rothermel and Laura K. Dillon (Eds.), ACM, 213–224.
[75]
Lu Zhang, Shan-Shan Hou, Chao Guo, Tao Xie, and Hong Mei. 2009. Time-aware test-case prioritization using integer linear programming. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, 213–224.
[76]
Jianyi Zhou and Dan Hao. 2017. Impact of static and dynamic coverage on test-case prioritization: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops. IEEE, 392–394.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On the Reliability and Explainability of Language Models for Program GenerationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/364154033:5(1-26)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2024)How Important Are Good Method Names in Neural Code Generation? A Model Robustness PerspectiveACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363001033:3(1-35)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
  • (2024)A test amplification bot for Pharo/SmalltalkJournal of Computer Languages10.1016/j.cola.2023.10125578(101255)Online publication date: Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 31, Issue 1
January 2022
665 pages
ISSN:1049-331X
EISSN:1557-7392
DOI:10.1145/3481711
  • Editor:
  • Mauro Pezzè
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 September 2021
Accepted: 01 June 2021
Revised: 01 June 2021
Received: 01 September 2020
Published in TOSEM Volume 31, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Test prioritiization
  2. parallel testing
  3. parallel test prioritization

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • National Natural Science Foundation of China

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)100
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 01 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On the Reliability and Explainability of Language Models for Program GenerationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/364154033:5(1-26)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2024)How Important Are Good Method Names in Neural Code Generation? A Model Robustness PerspectiveACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363001033:3(1-35)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
  • (2024)A test amplification bot for Pharo/SmalltalkJournal of Computer Languages10.1016/j.cola.2023.10125578(101255)Online publication date: Mar-2024
  • (2023)An Explanation Method for Models of CodeProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36228267:OOPSLA2(801-827)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2023
  • (2023)Discrete Adversarial Attack to Models of CodeProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35912277:PLDI(172-195)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2023
  • (2023)State of Practical Applicability of Regression Testing Research: A Live Systematic Literature ReviewACM Computing Surveys10.1145/357985155:13s(1-36)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2023
  • (2023)Exploring Better Black-Box Test Case Prioritization via Log AnalysisACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/356993232:3(1-32)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2023
  • (2023)RobustNPRJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.258636:4Online publication date: 23-May-2023
  • (undefined)CARL: Unsupervised Code-Based Adversarial Attacks for Programming Language Models via Reinforcement LearningACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/3688839

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media