Difference between revisions of "CddMeeting01712008"
(→Stefan) |
(→Stefan) |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
* Build releasable delivery on Windows | * Build releasable delivery on Windows | ||
* Rebuilding manual test suite through extraction and synthesizing | * Rebuilding manual test suite through extraction and synthesizing | ||
− | * In extracted test cases: break long manifest strings into smaller parts | + | * [DONE] In extracted test cases: break long manifest strings into smaller parts |
+ | * Extract STRINGs correctly | ||
===Manu=== | ===Manu=== |
Revision as of 03:55, 20 January 2008
Contents
- 1 CDD Meeting, Tuesday, 17.1.2008, 14:00
- 1.1 Next Meeting
- 1.2 Tasks
- 1.3 Questionnaires
- 1.4 Software Engineering Project
- 1.5 Data to harvest
- 1.6 Experiment Hypotheses
CDD Meeting, Tuesday, 17.1.2008, 14:00
Next Meeting
- Friday, 23.1.2008, 10:00
Tasks
Andreas
- Forumulate Experiment Hypothesis (Andreas)
- Fix AutoTest for courses
- Integrate AUT_TEST_CASE into CDD_TEST_CASE hierarchy
- New release
- Write documentation and videos tutorials (together with final release)
- Find out why errors in test classes are no longer ignored
Arno
- Remove cdd_enabled and capture/replay and add execute tag in config
- Right click clears CDD log window
- Add CDD IDE log entry when new test case is extracted
- Implement "New Manual Test Case" Button
- Better Icons for GUI (Arno)
- Status bar
- Grid items contain number of (failing) test routines
- Dropping stone on filter text automatically sets a new filter text (e.g. drop stone for ROOT_CLASS and filter text will be covers.ROOT_CLASS, for class MY_TESTS new filter text will be name.MY_TESTS)
- When test class gets removed manually, update test suite
- Restore open nodes and selection after full updates (incr. works already)
- Implement failure context window
- Maybe also additional information such as previous outcomes?
- Environment variable (or better user preference) for qualifying class names (to avoid svn conflicts)
- TreeView
- by Type, by Outcome, by Testcase (default), by Tested Class, by Tag; Implement via drop down box
- Start background execution after extraction (even if user is still debugging)
- Clean up test case in interpreter after each execution (through garbage collection?)
- Port to 6.1 (right after Beta 1)
- Build releasable delivery for Linux (after each Beta I guess...)
Bug Fixing
- Extracted test case does not appear in grid (AST does not contain test feature)
- Fix interpreter hang after runtime crash
- Scrolling in CDD output window
- Make sure tests directory exists before any of the printers try to print a class
- Check why EiffelStudio quits after debugging a test routine and ignoring violations
- Check if interpreter compilation errors are propagated correctly (seems to start interpreter even though compilation has failed)
Ilinca
- Integrate variable declarations into AutoTest trunk (by 8.2.2008)
Stefan
- [DONE] Add filters and tags for extracted, manual tests and synthesized tests
- [DONE] Look at/fix test case execution for agents
- Second Chance re-run to find true prestate (with Jocelyn)
- Allow for test case extraction of passing routine invocations (with Jocelyn)
- Logging
- What data to log?
- Implement storing
- Define how students should submit logs
- Data Gathering
- Define what data to gather
- Define how to process gather data
- Automate CDD System level tests
- Add most important convenience routine to CDD_TEST_CASE (Stefan)
- Move logs below cdd_tests
- Uniqe id to tag test cases with. To be used in logs. So test logs are resiliant to test class renamings
- [DONE] While extracting test cases, flag objects that are target to a currently executing routine
- [DONE] During setup check inv of all objects that are not flaged
- Make popup on interpreter crash go away (win32 only)
- Add info to indexing clause
- "This class has been automatically created by CDD"
- "Visit ... to learn more about extracted test cases"
- Creation date
- Build releasable delivery on Windows
- Rebuilding manual test suite through extraction and synthesizing
- [DONE] In extracted test cases: break long manifest strings into smaller parts
- Extract STRINGs correctly
Manu
- Define Project for SoftEng (due by next meeting)
- Find System level test suite for us to test students code
- Find project with pure functional part
- Install CDD in student labs (Manu)
- Devise questionnaires
- Initial (due next meeting after Manu's vacation)
- Midterm
- Final
- Analyze questionnaires
- Rework example profiles
- Assis will use CDD to get a feel for it and create a test suite for the students to start with
Unassigned
- Disable GUI visibility when running tests in interpreter (background testing)
- Display ignored test class compilation errors (looks like we will have this for free in 6.1)
- Do not extract test case for C calls like {CLASS_WITH_EXTERNALS}.some_function
Questionnaires
- Use ELBA
Software Engineering Project
- One large project, but divided into testable subcomponents
- Students required to write test cases
- Fixed API to make things uniformly testable
- Public/Secret test cases (similar to Zeller course)
- Competitions:
- Group A test cases applied to Group A project
- Group A test cases applied to Groupt B project
Data to harvest
- IDE Time with CDD(extraction) enabled / IDE Time with CDD(extraction) disabled
- Test Case Source (just final version, or all versions?)
- Use Profiler to get coverage approximation
- TC Meta Data (with timestamps -> Evolution of Test Case)
- TC Added/Removed/Changed
- TC Outcome (transitions from FAIL/PASS/UNRESOLVED[bad_communication <-> does_not_compile <-> bad_input])
- TC execution time
- Modificiations to a testcase (compiler needs to recompile)
- Development Session Data
- IDE Startup
- File save
- Questionnairs
- Initial
- Final
Experiment Hypotheses
Use of CDD increases development productivity
- Did the use of testing decrease development time?
- Meassures:
- Number of compilations
- Number of saves
- Number of revisions
- IDE time
- Asking the students
Emphasis on quetionnair result. Correlation with logs only if it makes sense
Use of CDD increases code correctness
- Is there a relation between code correctness of project (vs. some system level test suite) and test activity?
- Measures:
- number of tests
- number of times test were run
- Number of pass/fail, fail/pass transitions, (also consider unresolved/* transitions ?)
- Secret test suite
Developer Profile: Is there a correlation between Developer Profile and the way they use testing tools
- How did students use the testing tools?
- Are ther clusters of similar use?
- What is charactersitic for these clusters?
- Meassures:
- Aksing students before and after
- Are there projects where tests initially always fail resp. pass
- How often do they test?
- How correct is their project?
Midterm questionnaire will be used to phrase questions for final questionnaire.
Example profiles
- Waldundwiesen Hacker
- No explicit structure. Does whatever seems appriorate at the time. No QA plan.
- Agile
- Processes interleave. Conscionsness for QA. Maybe even Test First or TDD.
- Waterfall inspired
- Explicit process model. Phases don't interleave.
- ?
How do extracted, synthesized and manually written test cases compare?
- Which tests are the most useful to students?
- How many tests are there in each category?
- What's the test suite quality of each category?
- Were some excluded from testing more often than others?
- How many red/green and green/red transitions are there in each category?
- Which had compile-time errors most often that did not get fixed?
- Meassures:
- LOC
- Number of tests
- Number of executions
- Outcome transitions