An approach and benchmark to detect behavioral changes of commits in continuous integration

  title={An approach and benchmark to detect behavioral changes of commits in continuous integration},
  author={Benjamin Danglot and Monperrus Martin and Walter Rudametkin and B. Baudry},
  journal={Empirical Software Engineering},
  • Benjamin Danglot, Monperrus Martin, +1 author B. Baudry
  • Published 2020
  • Computer Science
  • Empirical Software Engineering
  • When a developer pushes a change to an application’s codebase, a good practice is to have a test case specifying this behavioral change. Thanks to continuous integration (CI), the test is run on subsequent commits to check that they do no introduce a regression for that behavior. In this paper, we propose an approach that detects behavioral changes in commits. As input, it takes a program, its test suite, and a commit. Its output is a set of test methods that capture the behavioral difference… CONTINUE READING
    2 Citations


    Automated Behavioral Regression Testing
    • W. Jin, A. Orso, T. Xie
    • Computer Science
    • 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation
    • 2010
    • 86
    • PDF
    Shadow of a Doubt: Testing for Divergences between Software Versions
    • 36
    • PDF
    Shadow Symbolic Execution for Testing Software Patches
    • 4
    BEARS: An Extensible Java Bug Benchmark for Automatic Program Repair Studies
    • 25
    • PDF
    KATCH: high-coverage testing of software patches
    • 103
    • PDF
    Semantics-assisted code review: An efficient tool chain and a user study
    • 8
    DiffGen: Automated Regression Unit-Test Generation
    • K. Taneja, T. Xie
    • Computer Science
    • 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
    • 2008
    • 70
    • PDF
    Automatic test improvement with DSpot: a study with ten mature open-source projects
    • 12
    • PDF
    How Open Source Projects Use Static Code Analysis Tools in Continuous Integration Pipelines
    • 62
    • PDF
    Differential symbolic execution
    • 257