research-article

Overlap between Automated Unit and Acceptance Testing – a Systematic Literature Review

Authors:
Jack van Heugten Breurkes

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

University of Canterbury, New Zealand
View Profile

,
Fabian Gilson

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

University of Canterbury, New Zealand
View Profile

,
Matthias Galster

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

University of Canterbury, New Zealand
View Profile

EASE '22: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software EngineeringJune 2022Pages 80–89https://doi.org/10.1145/3530019.3530028

Published:13 June 2022Publication History

EASE '22: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

Pages 80–89

ABSTRACT

Unit and automated acceptance testing have different objectives (e.g., testing units of code versus testing complete features). Testing practices (e.g., test-first, model-based) used for one “level” of testing (for either unit or acceptance testing) may require knowledge and skills that are not applicable to the other. This makes it difficult for practitioners to gain the skills required to effectively test at all levels and form a cohesive testing strategy. The aim of this systematic literature review is to understand whether there are any automated unit testing practices that have similarities with automated acceptance testing practices (and vice versa). Understanding these similarities can enable skill transfer across testing activities at different levels. This systematic literature review focuses on empirical research with an industry focus. We found that test-driven development (TDD) and model-based test generation (MBTG) are two practices widely researched for both unit testing and acceptance testing. For TDD we found that a design- and test-first mindset is required and helpful at both the unit and acceptance levels, but practitioners struggle with that practice. For MBTG we found that, despite its ability to increase code coverage, the additional manual effort to enable automated test generation may outweigh its benefits.

References

E. Alégroth, R. Feldt, and H. H. Olsson. 2013. Transitioning Manual System Test Suites to Automated Testing: An Industrial Case Study. In IEEE 6th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2013.14Google ScholarDigital Library
E. Alégroth, R. Feldt, and L. Ryrholm. 2015. Visual GUI testing in practice: challenges, problemsand limitations. Empirical Software Engineering 20, 3 (2015), 694–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-013-9293-5Google ScholarCross Ref
A. Ampatzoglou, S. Bibi, P. Avgeriou, M. Verbeek, and A. Chatzigeorgiou. 2019. Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies. Information and Software Technology 106 (2019), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.10.006Google ScholarCross Ref
M. Aniche and M. A. Gerosa. 2015. Does test-driven development improve class design? A qualitative study on developers’ perceptions. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society 21, 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13173-015-0034-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
R. Awedikian and B. Yannou. 2014. A practical model-based statistical approach for generating functional test cases: Application in the automotive industry. Software Testing Verification and Reliability 24, 2(2014), 85–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1479Google ScholarDigital Library
F. Paulo Basso, T. Cavalcante Oliveira, and K. Farias. 2014. Extending JUnit 4 with Java Annotations and Reflection to Test Variant Model Transformation Assets. In Proc. of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, 1601–1608. https://doi.org/10.1145/2554850.2555054Google ScholarDigital Library
G. Bavota, A. Qusef, R. Oliveto, A. De Lucia, and D. Binkley. 2015. Are test smells really harmful? An empirical study. Empirical Software Engineering 20, 4 (2015), 1052–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-014-9313-0Google ScholarDigital Library
M. B. Beverland, S. J. S. Wilner, and P. Micheli. 2015. Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43, 5 (01 Sep 2015), 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0443-8Google ScholarCross Ref
K. Bjerke-Gulstuen, E. W. Larsen, T. Stålhane, and T. Dingsøyr. 2015. High level test driven development – shift left. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Vol. 212. Springer, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_23Google Scholar
E. Borjesson and R. Feldt. 2012. Automated System Testing Using Visual GUI Testing Tools: A Comparative Study in Industry. In 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE, 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2012.115Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Bowes, T. Hall, J. Petric, T. Shippey, and B. Turhan. 2017. How Good Are My Tests?. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 8th Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics (WETSoM). IEEE, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/WETSoM.2017.2Google ScholarCross Ref
G. Buchgeher, S. Fischer, M. Moser, and J. Pichler. 2020. An Early Investigation of Unit Testing Practices of Component-Based Software Systems. In 2020 IEEE Workshop on Validation, Analysis and Evolution of Software Tests (VST). IEEE, 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/VST50071.2020.9051632Google Scholar
D. Budgen and P. Brereton. 2006. Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. In Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 1051–1052. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500Google ScholarDigital Library
T. Clune and R. Rood. 2011. Software Testing and Verification in Climate Model Development. IEEE Software 28, 6 (2011), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2011.117Google ScholarDigital Library
A. Costa and L. Teixeira. 2018. Testing Strategies for Smart Cities Applications: A Systematic Mapping Study. In Proc. of the III Brazilian Symposium on Systematic and Automated Software Testing. ACM, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3266003.3266005Google ScholarDigital Library
E. Daka and G. Fraser. 2014. A Survey on Unit Testing Practices and Problems. In 2014 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE.2014.11Google ScholarDigital Library
B. Danglot, O. L. Vera-Pérez, B. Baudry, and M. Monperrus. 2019. Automatic test improvement with DSpot: a study with ten mature open-source projects. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 4 (2019), 2603–2635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09692-yGoogle ScholarDigital Library
S. Easterbrook, J. Singer, M. Storey, and D. Damian. 2008. Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research. Springer London, 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_11Google Scholar
M. El-Attar and H. A. Abdul-Ghani. 2016. Using security robustness analysis for early-stage validation of functional security requirements. Requirements Engineering 21, 1 (2016), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-014-0208-9Google ScholarDigital Library
E. Engström and P. Runeson. 2011. Software product line testing – A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 53, 1 (2011), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.05.011Google ScholarDigital Library
G. Fraser, M. Staats, P. McMinn, A. Arcuri, and F. Padberg. 2013. Does Automated White-Box Test Generation Really Help Software Testers?. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1145/2483760.2483774Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Fucci, H. Erdogmus, B. Turhan, M. Oivo, and N. Juristo. 2017. A Dissection of the Test-Driven Development Process: Does It Really Matter to Test-First or to Test-Last?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 43, 7 (2017), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2016.2616877Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Gafurov, M. Sunde Grovan, and A. Erik Hurum. 2020. Lightweight MBT Testing for National E-Health Portal in Norway. ACM, 1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1145/3324884.3421843Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Ganesan, M. Lindvall, D. McComas, M. Bartholomew, S. Slegel, B. Medina, R. Krikhaar, C. Verhoef, and L. P. Montgomery. 2013. An analysis of unit tests of a flight software product line. Science of Computer Programming 78, 12 (2013), 2360–2380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.02.006Google ScholarDigital Library
V. Garousi, M. Felderer, and F. Nur Kılıçaslan. 2019. A survey on software testability. Information and Software Technology 108 (2019), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.12.003Google ScholarCross Ref
V. Garousi and M. V. Mäntylä. 2016. When and what to automate in software testing? A multi-vocal literature review. Information and Software Technology 76 (2016), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.015Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Gonzalez, M. Rath, and M. Mirakhorli. 2020. Did You Remember To Test Your Tokens?. In Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). ACM, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379597.3387471Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Gonzalez, J. C.S. Santos, A. Popovich, M. Mirakhorli, and M. Nagappan. 2017. A Large-Scale Study on the Usage of Testing Patterns That Address Maintainability Attributes: Patterns for Ease of Modification, Diagnoses, and Comprehension. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2017.8Google ScholarDigital Library
J. E. González, N. Juristo, and S. Vegas. 2014. A Systematic Mapping Study on Testing Technique Experiments: Has the Situation Changed since 2000?. In Proc. of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM, Article 3, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2652524.2652569Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Götz, M. Book, C. Bodenstein, and M. Riedel. 2017. Supporting Software Engineering Practices in the Development of Data-Intensive HPC Applications with the JuML Framework. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for High Performance Computing in Computational and Data-Enabled Science & Engineering. ACM, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3144763.3144765Google ScholarDigital Library
B. Haugset and G. Kjetil Hanssen. 2008. Automated Acceptance Testing: A Literature Review and an Industrial Case Study. In Agile 2008 Conference. 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2008.82Google ScholarDigital Library
B. Haugset and G. K. Hanssen. 2011. The Home Ground of Automated Acceptance Testing: Mature Use of FitNesse. In 2011 Agile Conference. IEEE, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2011.37Google ScholarDigital Library
L. Messan Hillah, A. Maesano, L. Maesano, F. De Rosa, F. Kordon, and P. Wuillemin. 2016. Service Functional Testing Automation with Intelligent Scheduling and Planning. ACM, 1605–1610. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851613.2851807Google ScholarDigital Library
IEEE. 1986. IEEE Standard for Software Unit Testing, ANSI/IEEE Std 1008-1987. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.1986.81001Google Scholar
IEEE. 2017. IEEE Standard for System, Software, and Hardware Verification and Validation, Std 1012-2016 (Revision of IEEE Std 1012-2012/ Incorporates IEEE Std 1012-2016/Cor1-2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8055462Google Scholar
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2013. International Standard—Software and systems engineering—Software testing—Part 1: Concepts and definitions ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1:2013(E)). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6588537Google Scholar
N. Juristo, A. M. Moreno, and S. Vegas. 2004. Reviewing 25 Years of Testing Technique Experiments. Empirical Softw. Engg. 9, 1–2 (mar 2004), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000013513.48963.1bGoogle ScholarDigital Library
D. Kamma and P. Maruthi. 2014. Effective Unit-Testing in Model-Based Software Development. In Proc. of the 9th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test. ACM, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593501.2593507Google ScholarDigital Library
U. Kanewala and J. M. Bieman. 2014. Testing scientific software: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 56, 10 (2014), 1219–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.05.006Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Kasurinen. 2010. Elaborating Software Test Processes and Strategies. In 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE, 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2010.25Google ScholarDigital Library
A. H. Khan, Z. H. Khan, and Z. Weiguo. 2014. Model-based verification and validation of safety-critical embedded real-time systems: Formation and tools. In Studies in Computational Intelligence. Vol. 520. Springer, 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40888-5_6Google Scholar
B. Kitchenham, H. Al-Khilidar, M. Ali Babar, M. Berry, K. Cox, J. Keung, F. Kurniawati, M. Staples, H. Zhang, and L. Zhu. 2008. Evaluating guidelines for reporting empirical software engineering studies. Empirical Software Engineering 13, 1 (01 Feb 2008), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-007-9053-5Google ScholarDigital Library
B. Kitchenham and S. Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Tech. Rep.School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University.Google Scholar
W. Lam, S. Srisakaokul, B. Bassett, P. Mahdian, T. Xie, P. Lakshman, and J. Halleux. 2018. A Characteristic Study of Parameterized Unit Tests in.NET Open Source Projects. In 32nd European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2018)(LIPIcs, Vol. 109). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 5:1–5:27. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ECOOP.2018.5Google Scholar
R. Latorre. 2014. A successful application of a Test-Driven Development strategy in the industrial environment. Empirical Software Engineering 19, 3 (2014), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-013-9281-9Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Lindvall, D. Ganesan, R. Árdal, and R. E. Wiegand. 2015. Metamorphic Model-Based Testing Applied on NASA DAT – An Experience Report. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. IEEE, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.348Google ScholarCross Ref
D. Hiura Longo, P. Vilain, and L. Pereira Silva. 2019. Impacts of Data Uniformity in the Reuse of Acceptance Test Glue Code. In The 31st International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. KSI Research Inc., 129–176. https://doi.org/10.18293/SEKE2019-102Google Scholar
D. D. Ma’ayan. 2018. The Quality of Junit Tests: An Empirical Study Report. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Software Qualities and Their Dependencies. ACM, 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194095.3194102Google ScholarDigital Library
A. Marques, F. Ramalho, and W. L. Andrade. 2014. Comparing Model-Based Testing with Traditional Testing Strategies: An Empirical Study. In 2014 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops. IEEE, 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2014.29Google ScholarDigital Library
F. L. Morais, A. Fontão, and S. C. Tamayo. 2020. Combining Design Thinking and Scrum to enhance Test Suite during innovative software development. In 23rd Iberoamerican Conference on Software Engineering, CIbSE 2020.Google Scholar
H. Munir and P. Runeson. 2015. Software Testing in Open Innovation: An Exploratory Case Study of the Acceptance Test Harness for Jenkins. In Proc. of the International Conference on Software and System Process. ACM, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785592.2795365Google ScholarDigital Library
A. Nanthaamornphong and J. C. Carver. 2018. Test-driven development in hpc science: A case study. Computing in Science and Engineering 20, 5 (2018), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2018.05329819Google ScholarCross Ref
N. Nomura, Y. Kikushima, and M. Aoyama. 2014. A Test Scenario Design Methodology Based on Business Context Modeling and Its Evaluation. In 2014 21st Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Vol. 1. IEEE, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2014.10Google ScholarDigital Library
G. O’Regan. 2019. Fundamentals of software engineering. Springer, 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28494-7_2Google Scholar
B. K. Papis, K. Grochowski, K. Subzda, and K. Sijko. 2020. Experimental evaluation of test-driven development with interns working on a real industrial project. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering(2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2020.3027522Google ScholarDigital Library
K. Petersen, S. Vakkalanka, and L. Kuzniarz. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology 64 (2015), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007Google ScholarDigital Library
J. Petrić, T. Hall, and D. Bowes. 2020. Which Software Faults Are Tests Not Detecting?. In Proc. of the Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. ACM, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383219.3383236Google ScholarDigital Library
M. P. Prado and A. M. R. Vincenzi. 2018. Towards cognitive support for unit testing: A qualitative study with practitioners. Journal of Systems and Software 141 (2018), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.052Google ScholarCross Ref
R. Ramler, G. Buchgeher, and C. Klammer. 2018. Adapting automated test generation to GUI testing of industry applications. Information and Software Technology 93 (2018), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.07.005Google ScholarDigital Library
R. Ramler, T. Wetzlmaier, and C. Klammer. 2017. An Empirical Study on the Application of Mutation Testing for a Safety-Critical Industrial Software System. In Proc. of the Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, 1401–1408. https://doi.org/10.1145/3019612.3019830Google ScholarDigital Library
C. L. Robinson-Mallett and R. M. Hierons. 2017. Integrating Graphical and Natural Language Specifications to Support Analysis and Testing. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW). IEEE, 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2017.50Google ScholarCross Ref
O. Rodríguez-Valdés, T. E. J. Vos, P. Aho, and B. Marín. 2021. 30 Years of Automated GUI Testing: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Quality of Information and Communications Technology. Springer, 473–488.Google Scholar
R. Rwemalika, M. Kintis, M. Papadakis, Y. Le Traon, and P. Lorrach. 2019. On the Evolution of Keyword-Driven Test Suites. In 2019 12th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification (ICST). IEEE, 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2019.00040Google Scholar
M. Sahinoglu, K. Incki, and M. S. Aktas. 2015. Mobile Application Verification: A Systematic Mapping Study. In Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2015. Springer, 147–163.Google ScholarCross Ref
E. César Dos Santos, P. Vilain, and D. Hiura Longo. 2018. A Systematic Literature Review to Support the Selection of User Acceptance Testing Techniques. In Proc. of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceeedings. ACM, 418–419. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183440.3195036Google ScholarDigital Library
P. Lamela Seijas, S. Thompson, and M. Ángel Francisco. 2016. Model Extraction and Test Generation from JUnit Test Suites. In Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test. ACM, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2896921.2896927Google ScholarDigital Library
P.K. Singh, O.P. Sangwan, and A. Sharma. 2013. A systematic review on fault based mutation testing techniques and tools for Aspect-J programs. In 2013 3rd IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC). IEEE, 1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAdCC.2013.6514441Google Scholar
T. Toroi, A. Raninen, and L. Väätäinen. 2013. Identifying Process Improvement Targets in Test Processes: A Case Study. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2013.12Google ScholarDigital Library
A. Tosun, M. Ahmed, B. Turhan, and N. Juristo. 2018. On the Effectiveness of Unit Tests in Test-Driven Development. In Proc. of the Int’l Conference on Software and System Process. ACM, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202710.3203153Google ScholarDigital Library
F. Trautsch, S. Herbold, and J. Grabowski. 2020. Are unit and integration test definitions still valid for modern Java projects? An empirical study on open-source projects. Journal of Systems and Software 159 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110421Google ScholarDigital Library
H. William Veiga, M. Hering Queiroz, J. Farines, and M. Lopes Lima. 2017. Automatic Conformance Testing of Safety Instrumented Systems for Offshore Oil Platforms. In Critical Systems: Formal Methods and Automated Verification. Springer, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67113-0_4Google Scholar
F. Zampetti, A. Di Sorbo, C. A. Visaggio, G. Canfora, and M. Di Penta. 2020. Demystifying the adoption of behavior-driven development in open source projects. Information and Software Technology 123 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106311Google Scholar
Q. Zhu, A. Panichella, and A. Zaidman. 2018. A systematic literature review of how mutation testing supports quality assurance processes. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 28, 6(2018), e1675. https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1675Google ScholarCross Ref

Recommendations

On the effectiveness of unit tests in test-driven development
ICSSP '18: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Software and System Process

Background: Writing unit tests is one of the primary activities in test-driven development. Yet, the existing reviews report few evidence supporting or refuting the effect of this development approach on test case quality. Lack of ability and skills of ...
Read More
EasyAccept: a tool to easily create, run and drive development with automated acceptance tests
AST '06: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Automation of software test

This paper introduces EasyAccept, a tool to create and run client-readable acceptance tests easily, and describes how it can be used to allow a simple but powerful acceptance-test driven software development (ATDD) approach. EasyAccept takes acceptance ...
Read More
Parameterized unit testing: theory and practice
ICSE '10: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2

Unit testing has been widely recognized as an important and valuable means of improving software reliability, as it exposes bugs early in the software development life cycle. However, manual unit testing is often tedious and insufficient. Testing tools ...
Read More

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Published in
EASE '22: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
June 2022
466 pages
ISBN:9781450396134
DOI:10.1145/3530019
Editors:
Miroslaw Staron
Chalmers | University of Gothenburg, Sweden
,
Christian Berger
Chalmers | University of Gothenburg, Sweden
,
Jocelyn Simmonds
University of Chile, Chile
,
Rafael Prikladnicki
School of Technology at PUCRS University, Brazil
Copyright © 2022 ACM
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
- Published: 13 June 2022
Permissions
Request permissions about this article.
Request Permissions

Check for updates
Author Tags
acceptance testing
automated testing
model-based test generation
test-driven development
testing strategy
unit testing
Qualifiers
- research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference

Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate71of232submissions,31%
Funding Sources
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics

Article Metrics
- 1
  Total Citations
  View Citations
- 159
  Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)69
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Cited By
View all

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format

Overlap between Automated Unit and Acceptance Testing – a Systematic Literature Review

EASE '22: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

ABSTRACT

References

Cited By

Recommendations

On the effectiveness of unit tests in test-driven development

EasyAccept: a tool to easily create, run and drive development with automated acceptance tests

Parameterized unit testing: theory and practice