Source author record

Ivan Machado

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Software Engineering

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works

1topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

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.

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.

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.