BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Ivan Machado

Ivan Machado contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Refactoring Assertion Roulette and Duplicate Assert test smells: a controlled experiment

Test smells can reduce the developers' ability to interact with the test code. Refactoring test code offers a safe strategy to handle test smells. However, the manual refactoring activity is not a trivial process, and it is often tedious and error-prone. This study aims to evaluate RAIDE, a tool for automatic identification and refactoring of test smells. We present an empirical assessment of RAIDE, in which we analyzed its capability at refactoring Assertion Roulette and Duplicate Assert test smells and compared the results against both manual refactoring and a state-of-the-art approach. The results show that RAIDE provides a faster and more intuitive approach for handling test smells than using an automated tool for smells detection combined with manual refactoring.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A survey on test practitioners' awareness of test smells

Developing test code may be a time-consuming task that usually requires much effort and cost, especially when it is done manually. Besides, during this process, developers and testers are likely to adopt bad design choices, which may lead to the introduction of the so-called test smells in test code. Test smells are bad solutions to either implement or design test code. As the test code with test smells increases in size, these tests might become more complex, and as a consequence, much harder to understand and evolve correctly. Therefore, test smells may have a negative impact on the quality and maintenance of test code and may also harm the whole software testing activities. In this context, this study aims to understand whether test professionals non-intentionally insert test smells. We carried out an expert survey to analyze the usage frequency of a set of test smells. Sixty professionals from different companies participated in the survey. We selected 14 widely studied smells from the literature, which are also implemented in existing test smell detection tools. The yielded results indicate that experienced professionals introduce test smells during their daily programming tasks, even when they are using standardized practices from their companies, and not only for their personal assumptions. Another relevant evidence was that developers' professional experience can not be considered as a root-cause for the insertion of test smells in test code.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access