Search for: All records

Regression test selection (RTS) speeds up regression testing by only re-running tests that might be affected by code changes. Ideal RTS safely selects all affected tests and precisely selects only affected tests. But, aiming for this ideal is often slower than re-running all tests. So, recent RTS techniques use program analysis to trade precision for speed, i.e., lower regression testing time, or even use machine learning to trade safety for speed. We seek to make recent analysis-based RTS techniques more precise, to further speed up regression testing. Independent studies suggest that these techniques reached a “performance wall” in the speed-ups that they provide. We manually inspect code changes to discover those that do not require re-running tests that are only affected by such changes. We categorize 29 kinds of changes that we found from five projects into 13 findings, 11 of which are semantics-modifying. We enhance two RTS techniques—Ekstazi and STARTS—to reason about our findings. Using 1,150 versions of 23 projects, we evaluate the impact on safety and precision of leveraging such changes. We also evaluate if our findings from a few projects can speed up regression testing in other projects. The results show that our enhancements are effective and they can generalize. On average, they result in selecting 41.7% and 31.8% fewer tests, and take 33.7% and 28.7% less time than Ekstazi and STARTS, respectively, with no loss in safety. 

Regression testing---rerunning tests on each code version to detect newly-broken functionality---is important and widely practiced. But, regression testing is costly due to the large number of tests and the high frequency of code changes. Regression test selection (RTS) optimizes regression testing by only rerunning a subset of tests that can be affected by changes. Researchers showed that RTS based on program analysis can save substantial testing time for (medium-sized) open-source projects. Practitioners also showed that RTS based on machine learning (ML) works well on very large code repositories, e.g., in Facebook's monorepository. We combine analysis-based RTS and ML-based RTS by using the latter to choose a subset of tests selected by the former. We first train several novel ML models to learn the impact of code changes on test outcomes using a training dataset that we obtain via mutation analysis. Then, we evaluate the benefits of combining ML models with analysis-based RTS on 10 projects, compared with using each technique alone. Combining ML-based RTS with two analysis-based RTS techniques-Ekstazi and STARTS-selects 25.34% and 21.44% fewer tests, respectively. 

There has been a growing interest in developing machine learning (ML) models for code summarization tasks, e.g., comment generation and method naming. Despite substantial increase in the effectiveness of ML models, the evaluation methodologies, i.e., the way people split datasets into training, validation, and test sets, were not well studied. Specifically, no prior work on code summarization considered the timestamps of code and comments during evaluation. This may lead to evaluations that are inconsistent with the intended use cases. In this paper, we introduce the time-segmented evaluation methodology, which is novel to the code summarization research community, and compare it with the mixed-project and cross-project methodologies that have been commonly used. Each methodology can be mapped to some use cases, and the time-segmented methodology should be adopted in the evaluation of ML models for code summarization. To assess the impact of methodologies, we collect a dataset of (code, comment) pairs with timestamps to train and evaluate several recent ML models for code summarization. Our experiments show that different methodologies lead to conflicting evaluation results. We invite the community to expand the set of methodologies used in evaluations.