From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Regression testing is a testing activity that is performed to provide confidence that changes do not harm the existing behaviour of the software. Test suites tend to grow in size as software evolves, often making it too costly to execute entire test suites. A number of different approaches have been studied to maximize the value of the accrued test suite: minimization, selection and prioritization. Test suite minimization seeks to eliminate redundant test cases in order to reduce the number of tests to run. Test case selection seeks to identify the test cases that are relevant to some set of recent changes. Test case prioritization seeks to order test cases in such a way that early fault detection is maximized. This paper surveys each area of minimization, selection and prioritization technique and discusses open problems and potential directions for future research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: a survey

The high cost of locating faults in programs has motivated the development of techniques that assist in fault localization by automating part of the process of searching for faults. Empirical studies that compare these techniques have reported the relative effectiveness of four existing techniques on a set of subjects. These studies compare the rankings that the techniques compute for statements in the subject programs and the effectiveness of these rankings in locating the faults. However, it is unknown how these four techniques compare with Tarantula, another existing fault-localization technique, although this technique also provides a way to rank statements in terms of their suspiciousness. Thus, we performed a study to compare the Tarantula technique with the four techniques previously compared. This paper presents our study---it overviews the Tarantula technique along with the four other techniques studied, describes our experiment, and reports and discusses the results. Our studies show that, on the same set of subjects, the Tarantula technique consistently outperforms the other four techniques in terms of effectiveness in fault localization, and is comparable in efficiency to the least expensive of the other four techniques.

/pdf/empirical-evaluation-of-the-tarantula-automatic-fault-s84tf6v6nj.pdf

Empirical evaluation of the tarantula automatic fault-localization technique

Extensively class tested, this text takes an innovative approach to explaining the process of software testing: it defines testing as the process of applying a few well-defined, general-purpose test criteria to a structure or model of the software. The structure of the text directly reflects the pedagogical approach and incorporates the latest innovations in testing, including techniques to test modern types of software such as OO, web applications, and embedded software.

/pdf/introduction-to-software-testing-454uueymyx.pdf

Introduction to Software Testing

Introduction to Software Testing: List of Figures

Crowdsourced software testing has been shown to be capable of detecting many bugs and simulating real usage scenarios. As such, it is popular in mobile-application testing. However in mobile testing, test reports often consist of only some screenshots and short text descriptions. Inspecting and under-standing the overwhelming number of mobile crowdsourced test reports becomes a time-consuming but inevitable task. The paucity and potential inaccuracy of textual information and the well-defined screenshots of activity views within mobile applications motivate us to propose a novel technique to assist developers in understanding crowdsourced test reports by automatically describing the screenshots. To reach this goal, in this paper, we propose a fully automatic technique to generate descriptive words for the well-defined screenshots. We employ the test reports written by professional testers to build up language models. We use the computer-vision technique, namely Spatial Pyramid Matching (SPM), to measure similarities and extract features from the screenshot images. The experimental results, based on more than 1000 test reports from 4 industrial crowdsourced projects, show that our proposed technique is promising for developers to better understand the mobile crowdsourced test reports.

Generating descriptions for screenshots to assist crowdsourced testing

While the use of independent test agencies is on the rise — currently estimated to be a $25B marketplace — there are a number of challenges to successful collaboration between these agencies and their client software development organizations. These agencies offer independent verification of software, skilled testing experts, and economic advantages that arise from differential global labor rates. However, these benefits are often offset by difficulties in effectively integrating the outsourced testing into software development practice. We conducted extensive discussions with test managers and engineers at software development organizations. This position paper presents the findings of these discussions that identify key difficulties of integrating independent test agencies into software development practice, and it describes our position on how these findings can be addressed.

/pdf/enabling-and-enhancing-collaborations-between-software-dfx3hk3w3u.pdf

Enabling and enhancing collaborations between software development organizations and independent test agencies

Open-source developers, particularly the elite developers, maintain a diverse portfolio of contributing activities. They do not only commit source code but also spend a significant amount of effort on other communicative, organizational, and supportive activities. However, almost all prior research focuses on a limited number of specific activities and fails to analyze elite developers' activities in a comprehensive way. To bridge this gap, we conduct an empirical study with fine-grained event data from 20 large open-source projects hosted on GitHub. Thus, we investigate elite developers' contributing activities and their impacts on project outcomes. Our analyses reveal three key findings: (1) they participate in a variety of activities while technical contributions (e.g., coding) accounting for a small proportion only; (2) they tend to put more effort into supportive and communicative activities and less effort into coding as the project grows; (3) their participation in non-technical activities is negatively associated with the project's outcomes in term of productivity and software quality. These results provide a panoramic view of elite developers' activities and can inform an individual's decision making about effort allocation, thus leading to finer project outcomes. The results also provide implications for supporting these elite developers.

Unveiling Elite Developers' Activities in Open Source Projects

Classification techniques have been used in software-engineering research to perform tasks such as categorizing software executions. Traditionally, existing work has proposed single-label failure classification techniques, in which the training and subsequent executions are labeled with a singular fault attribution. Although such approaches have received substantial attention in research on automated software engineering, in reality, recent work shows that the assumption of such a single attribution is often unrealistic: in practice, the inherent characteristics of software behavior, such as multiple faults that contribute to failures and fault interactions, may negatively influence the effectiveness of these techniques. To relax this unrealistic assumption, in the machine learning field, researchers have proposed new approaches for multi-label classification. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such approaches varies widely based upon application domains. In this paper, we empirically investigate the performance of these new approaches on the failure classification task under different application settings. We conducted experiments using eight classification techniques on five subject programs with more than 8,000 faulty versions to investigate how each such technique accounts for the intricacies of software behavior. Our experimental results show that multi-label techniques provide improved accuracy over single-label. We also evaluated the efficiency of the training and prediction phases of each technique, and offer guidance as to the applicability for each technique for different usage contexts.

An Empirical Study on Software Failure Classification with Multi-label and Problem-Transformation Techniques

Open source developers, particularly the elite developers who own the administrative privileges for a project, maintain a diverse portfolio of contributing activities. They not only commit source code but also exert significant efforts on other communicative, organizational, and supportive activities. However, almost all prior research focuses on specific activities and fails to analyze elite developers’ activities in a comprehensive way. To bridge this gap, we conduct an empirical study with fine-grained event data from 20 large open source projects hosted on GITHUB. We investigate elite developers’ contributing activities and their impacts on project outcomes. Our analyses reveal three key findings: (1) elite developers participate in a variety of activities, of which technical contributions (e.g., coding) only account for a small proportion; (2) as the project grows, elite developers tend to put more effort into supportive and communicative activities and less effort into coding; and (3) elite developers’ efforts in nontechnical activities are negatively correlated with the project’s outcomes in terms of productivity and quality in general, except for a positive correlation with the bug fix rate (a quality indicator). These results provide an integrated view of elite developers’ activities and can inform an individual’s decision making about effort allocation, which could lead to improved project outcomes. The results also provide implications for supporting these elite developers.

James A. Jones

Papers

Generating descriptions for screenshots to assist crowdsourced testing

Enabling and enhancing collaborations between software development organizations and independent test agencies

Unveiling Elite Developers' Activities in Open Source Projects

An Empirical Study on Software Failure Classification with Multi-label and Problem-Transformation Techniques

Unveiling Elite Developers’ Activities in Open Source Projects