Paper detail

Comparative Study of Machine Learning Test Case Prioritization for Continuous Integration Testing

There is a growing body of research indicating the potential of machine learning to tackle complex software testing challenges. One such challenge pertains to continuous integration testing, which is highly time-constrained, and generates a large amount of data coming from iterative code commits and test runs. In such a setting, we can use plentiful test data for training machine learning predictors to identify test cases able to speed up the detection of regression bugs introduced during code integration. However, different machine learning models can have different fault prediction performance depending on the context and the parameters of continuous integration testing, for example variable time budget available for continuous integration cycles, or the size of test execution history used for learning to prioritize failing test cases. Existing studies on test case prioritization rarely study both of these factors, which are essential for the continuous integration practice. In this study we perform a comprehensive comparison of the fault prediction performance of machine learning approaches that have shown the best performance on test case prioritization tasks in the literature. We evaluate the accuracy of the classifiers in predicting fault-detecting tests for different values of the continuous integration time budget and with different length of test history used for training the classifiers. In evaluation, we use real-world industrial datasets from a continuous integration practice. The results show that different machine learning models have different performance for different size of test history used for model training and for different time budget available for test case execution. Our results imply that machine learning approaches for test prioritization in continuous integration testing should be carefully configured to achieve optimal performance.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.