Source author record

Elmar Juergens

Elmar Juergens appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Tool Support for Continuous Quality Control

Over time, software systems suffer gradual quality decay and therefore costs can rise if organizations fail to take proactive countermeasures. Quality control is the first step to avoiding this cost trap. Continuous quality assessments help users identify quality problems early, when their removal is still inexpensive; they also aid decision making by providing an integrated view of a software system's current status. As a side effect, continuous and timely feedback helps developers and maintenance personnel improve their skills and thereby decreases the likelihood of future quality defects. To make regular quality control feasible, it must be highly automated, and assessment results must be presented in an aggregated manner to avoid overwhelming users with data. This article offers an overview of tools that aim to address these issues. The authors also discuss their own flexible, open-source toolkit, which supports the creation of dashboards for quality control.

preprint2016arXiv

Will My Tests Tell Me If I Break This Code?

Automated tests play an important role in software evolution because they can rapidly detect faults introduced during changes. In practice, code-coverage metrics are often used as criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of test suites with focus on regression faults. However, code coverage only expresses which portion of a system has been executed by tests, but not how effective the tests actually are in detecting regression faults. Our goal was to evaluate the validity of code coverage as a measure for test effectiveness. To do so, we conducted an empirical study in which we applied an extreme mutation testing approach to analyze the tests of open-source projects written in Java. We assessed the ratio of pseudo-tested methods (those tested in a way such that faults would not be detected) to all covered methods and judged their impact on the software project. The results show that the ratio of pseudo-tested methods is acceptable for unit tests but not for system tests (that execute large portions of the whole system). Therefore, we conclude that the coverage metric is only a valid effectiveness indicator for unit tests.