- 1 CDD Meeting, Tuesday, 8.1.2008, 10:00
- 1.1 Next Meeting
- 1.2 Tasks
- 1.3 Software Engineering Project
- 1.4 Data to harvest
- 1.5 Experiment Hypotheses
CDD Meeting, Tuesday, 8.1.2008, 10:00
- Friday, 11.1.2008, 10:00
- Add filters and tags for extracted, manual tests and automated tests
- Fix extraction for tuples -> DONE
- Look at/fix test case execution for agents (Stefan)
- CDD log window in IDE (Arno)
- "New manual test case" Button (Arno)
- Better Icons for GUI (Arno)
- Status / Progress bar (Arno)
- Port to 6.1 (?, probably only after Beta 1)
- Manual re-run to find true prestate (Jocelyn, Stefan)
- Logging (Stefan)
- What data to log?
- Implement storing
- Define how students should submit logs
- Data Gathering (Stefan)
- Define what data to gather
- Define how to process gather data
- Forumulate Experiment Hypothesis (Andreas)
- Define Project for SoftEng (Manu)
- Find System level test suite for us to test students code
- Find project with pure functional part
- "Execute visible test cases only" Button (?)
- Restore open nodes and selection after grid update (Arno)
- Maybe better/easier solved via incremental updates from tree
- Automate CDD System level tests (Stefan)
- Install CDD in student labs (Manu)
- Pause test execution and compilation during regular compilation and execution (Arno)
- Add most important convenience routine to CDD_TEST_CASE (Stefan)
- Add failure context window (Arno)
- Maybe also additional information such as previous outcomes?
- Check why Gobo slows down compilation of project not using gobo when melting (performance issue for compiling interpreter)
- Fix AutoTest for courses
- Integrate AUT_TEST_CASE into CDD_TEST_CASE hierarchy
- Variable declaration for failing test cases
- New release
- Move logs below cdd_tests
- Environment variable (or better user preference) for qualifying class names (to avoid svn conflicts)
- 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
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)
- Group A test cases applied to Group A project
- Group A test cases applied to Groupt B project
Data to harvest
- Test Case Source (just final version, or all versions?)
- Use Profiler to get coverage approximation
- TC Meta Data (with timestamps)
- TC Added/Removed
- TC Outcome
- TC execution time
- Development Session Data
- IDE Startup
- File save
Use of CDD increases development productivity
- Did the use of testing decrease development time?
- This can be meassured by either looking at
- Number of compilations
- Number of saves
- Number of revisions
- IDE time
- Asking the students
None of the above strikes me as particualry reliable though. Also, it is easy to develop quickly if you do a bad job. In order to compare apples to apples we must be careful to compare projects with a similar correcntess and completeness. We could use an external test suite to assess correctness, or the grade of the students.
Use of CDD increases code correctness
- Is there a relation between code correctness of project (vs. some system level test suite) and test activity?
- Test activity could composed of number of tests in system, number of times it ran, Number of pass/fail, fail/pass transitions, ...
- How did students use the testing tools. Are ther clusters of similar use? What is charactersitic for these clusters?
How do extracted, synthesized and manually written test cases compare?
- How many tests are there in 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?
- Which did students find the most useful (questionnair)?