Prioritizing test cases for regression testing

By Gregg Rothermel, R. Untch, Chengyun Chu, Mary Jean Harrold. International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 2000

1,695 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Software

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/86294296ca6efafb2f8db96687e77a4b3cbed7c7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Software

Citations in the corpus

Search Based Software Engineering: Techniques, Taxonomy, Tutorial (2010, methodology): “Test Case Prioritisation represents a group of techniques that particularly deal with the permutations of tests in regression test suites [28, 108].”
On the Use of Mutation Faults in Empirical Assessments of Test Case Prioritization Techniques (2006, methodology): “Various prioritization techniques have been proposed [11, 14, 36, 38, 40], but the techniques most prevalent in the literature and in practice involve those that utilize simpl e code coverage information.”
Using Mutation Analysis for Assessing and Comparing Testing Coverage Criteria (2006, methodology): “During the course of their research, Rothermel et al. [28] identified and eliminated five more faults, bringing the total number of versions of the program to 38; however, they found that three of the original versions did not exhibit faulty behaviour, reducing the number of nonequivalent versions…”
The strength of random search on automated program repair (2014, background): “As described in [34] by Rothermel et al., test case prioritization problem can be deﬁned as follows: Given : T , a test suite; PT , the set of permutations of T ; f , a function from PT to the real numbers.”
Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: a survey (2012, methodology): “The APFD value for T ′ is calculated as follows [123]: APFD=1− TF1+·· ·+TFm nm + 1 2n Note that, while APFD is commonly used to evaluate test case prioritization techniques, it is not the aim of test case prioritization techniques to maximize APFD.”
The Current State and Future of Search Based Software Engineering (2007, methodology): “address the prioritization problem using greedy algorithms [73, 72].”
Techniques for improving regression testing in continuous integration development environments (2014, background): “Thus, a wide variety of approaches have been developed for rendering reuse more cost-effective via regression test selection (e.g., [4, 22, 24, 31]) and test case prioritization (e.g., [7, 10, 25, 27, 28, 34]).”
Finding failures by cluster analysis of execution profiles (2001, background): “Elbaum, et al [4] and Rothermel, et al [19] describe a variant of observation-based testing that involves prioritizing test cases for regression testing, and they empirically evaluate test-case prioritization techniques.”
Search Algorithms for Regression Test Case Prioritization (2007, methodology): “Thus, prioritisation techniques for code coverage are necessarily heuristic [18].”
Incorporating varying test costs and fault severities into test case prioritization (2001, methodology): “In previous work [2, 11] we provided a metric, APFD, which measures the average cumulative percentage of faults detected over the course of executing the test cases in a test suite in a given order.”
Automatically finding patches using genetic programming (2009, methodology): “Time-aware test suite prioritization techniques exist for choosing a useful and quickto-execute subset of a large test suite [26, 29]; in our experiments five testcases serve as a reasonable lower bound.”
Are mutants a valid substitute for real faults in software testing? (2014, positive): “, [3, 13, 18, 19, 35, 37–39]): Test suite evaluation The most common use of mutation analysis is to evaluate and compare (generated) test suites.”