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)

Arno

• Port to 6.1 (right after Beta 1)
• 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)
  • http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
  • http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Library
• Status bar (Arno)
• 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)
• Fix interpreter hang after runtime crash
• Build releasable delivery and Linux
• TreeView
  • by Type, by Outcome, by Testcase (default), by Tested Class, by Tag; Implement via drop down box

Ilinca

• Integrate variable declarations into AutoTest trunk (by 8.2.2008)

Stefan

• Add filters and tags for extracted, manual tests and synthesized tests
• 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
• While extracting test cases, flag objects that are target to a currently executing routine
• 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

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

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