scholarly journals Generating Unit Tests for Documentation

Author(s):  
Mathieu Nassif ◽  
Alexa Hernandez ◽  
Ashvitha Sridharan ◽  
Martin P. Robillard
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 245 ◽  
pp. 08008
Author(s):  
Sam Cunliffe ◽  
Ilya Komarov ◽  
Thomas Kuhr ◽  
Martin Ritter ◽  
Francesco Tenchini

Belle II is a rapidly growing collaboration with members from one hundred and nineteen institutes spread around the globe. The software development team of the experiment, as well as the software users, are very much decentralised. Together with the active development of the software, such decentralisation makes the adoption of the latest software releases by users an essential, but quite challenging task. To ensure the relevance of the documentation, we adopted the policy of in-code documentation and configured a website that allows us to tie the documentation to given releases. To prevent tutorials from becoming outdated, we covered them by unit-tests. For the user support, we use a question and answer service that not only reduces repetition of the same questions but also turned out to be a place for discussions among the experts. A prototype of a metasearch engine for the different sources of documentation has been developed. For training of the new users, we organise centralised StarterKit workshops attached to the collaboration meetings. The materials of the workshops are later used for self-education and organisation of local training sessions.


Author(s):  
Simone Romano ◽  
Davide Davide Fucci ◽  
Giuseppe Scanniello ◽  
Burak Turhan ◽  
Natalia Juristo

Background: Test-driven development (TDD) is an iterative software development technique where unit-tests are defined before production code. Previous studies fail to analyze the values, beliefs, and assumptions that inform and shape TDD. Aim: We designed and conducted a qualitative study to understand the values, beliefs, and assumptions of TDD. In particular, we sought to understand how novice and professional software developers, arranged in pairs (a driver and a pointer), perceive and apply TDD. Method: 14 novice software developers, i.e., graduate students in Computer Science at the University of Basilicata, and six professional software developers with work one to 10 years work experience participated in our ethnographically-informed study. We asked the participants to implement a new feature for an existing software written in Java. We immersed ourselves in the context of the study, and collected data by means of contemporaneous field notes, audio recordings, and other artifacts. Results: A number of insights emerge from our analysis of the collected data, the main ones being: (i) refactoring (one of the phases of TDD) is not performed as often as the process requires and it is considered less important than other phases, (ii) the most important phase is implementation, (iii) unit tests for unimplemented functionalities or behaviors are almost never up-to-date, (iv) participants first build a sort of mental model of the source code to be implemented and only then write test cases on the basis of this model; and (v) apart from minor differences, professional developers and students applied TDD in a similar fashion. Conclusions: Developers write quick-and-dirty production code to pass the tests and ignore refactoring.


2003 ◽  
pp. 23-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Link
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document