Impact of pair programming on thoroughness and fault detection effectiveness of unit test suites

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 281-295

  Madeyski, Lech ^a  

^a WROCLAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

Author keywords

Code coverage; Fault finding effectiveness; Mutation score; Pair programming; Tests quality; Unit testing

Indexed keywords

PLASTIC PRODUCTS; PUMPING PLANTS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TESTING;

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE (ANCOVA); BRANCH COVERAGE; COMPLEX PROJECTS; EXERCISE PROGRAMS; FAULT-DETECTION EFFECTIVENESS; MUTATION SCORE; PAIR-PROGRAMMING; SELECTIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVE MEASURING; SOLO PROGRAMMING; TEST SUITES; UNIT TESTING;

FAULT DETECTION;

EID: 47849084205     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: 10991670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.382     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. American Psychological Association. 2001. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th edn. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
2. Ammann P, Offutt J. 2008. Introduction to Software Testing, Cambridge University Press, New York.
3. Arisholm E, Gallis H, Dybå T, Sjeberg DIK. 2007. Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33(2): 65-86.
4. Atlassian Pty Ltd. 2008. Clover Code Coverage tool, http://www.atlassian. com/software/clover.
5. Beck K. 2002. Tesi Driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA.
6. Beck K, Andres C. 2004. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA.
7. Cai X, Lyu MR. 2005. The effect of code coverage on fault detection under different testing profiles. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30(4): 1-7.
8. Chevalley P, Thévenod-Fosse P. 2003. A mutation analysis tool for Java programs. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 5(1): 90-103.
9. Cook TD, Campbell DT. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.
10. Cornett S. 2007. Code coverage analysis, (Retrieved 2007), http://www.bullseye.com/coverage.html.
11. DeMillo RA, Lipton RJ, Sayward FG. 1978. Hints on test data selection: help for the practicing programmer. IEEE Computer 11(4): 34-41.
12. Frankl PG, Weiss SN, Hu C. 1997. All-uses vs mutation testing: an experimental comparison of effectiveness. Journal of Systems and Software 38(3): 235-253.
13. Hamlet RG. 1977. Testing programs with the aid of a compiler. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3(4): 279-290.
14. Höst M, Regnell B, Wohlin C. 2000. Using students as subjects - a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering 5(3): 201-214.
15. Hulkko H, Abrahamsson P. 2005. A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality. ICSE'05: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM Press: New York, 495-504.
16. Kaner C. 1996. Software negligence and testing coverage. STAR 96: 5th International Conference, Software Testing, Analysis and Review, Orlando, 299-327.
17. Kitchenham B, Pfleeger SL, Pickard L, Jones P, Hoaglin DC, Emam KE, Rosenberg J. 2002. Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(8): 721-734.
18. Kobayashi O, Kawabata M, Sakai M, Parkinson E. 2006. Analysis of the Interaction between Practices for Introducing XP Effectively. In ICSE'06:28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM Press: New York, 544-550.
19. Langr J. 2007. Pair programming observations, (Retrieved 2007), http://www.langrsoft.com/articles/pairing.shtml.
20. Ma YS, Harrold MJ, Kwon YR. 2006a. Evaluation of mutation testing for object-oriented programs. ICSE'06: 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM Press: New York, 869-872.
21. Ma YS, Offutt J, Kwon YR. 2006b. MuJava: a mutation system for Java. ICSE'06: 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM Press: New York, 827-830.
22. Madeyski L. 2005. Preliminary analysis of the effects of pair programming and test-driven development on the external code quality. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 130: 113-123, http://madeyski.e- informatyka.pl/download/Madeyski05b.pdf.
23. Madeyski L. 2006a. Is external code quality correlated with programming experience or feelgood factor? Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4044: 65-74, DOI: 10.1007/11774129-7.
24. Madeyski L. 2006b. The impact of pair programming and test-driven development on package dependencies in object-oriented design - an experiment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4034: 278-289.
25. Madeyski L. 2007. On the effects of pair programming on thoroughness and fault-finding effectiveness of unit tests. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4589: 207-221, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-73460-4.20.
26. Madeyski L, Radyk N. 2007. Judy mutation testing tool project, (Retrieved 2007) http://www.e-informatyka.pl/sens/Wiki.jsp?page=Projects.Judy.
27. Madeyski L, Szala L. 2007a. Impact of aspect-oriented programming on software development efficiency and design quality: an empirical study. IET Software 1(5): 180-187, DOI: 10.1049/iet-sen:20060071.
28. Madeyski L, Szała L. 2007b. The impact of test-driven development on software development productivity - an empirical study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4764: 200-211. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-75381-0-18.
29. Marick B. 1999. How to misuse code coverage. 16th International Conference on Testing Computer Software, Washington, (Retrieved 2007), http://www.testing.com/writings/coverage.pdf.
30. Martin RC. 2006. OO Design Quality Metrics: An Analysis of Dependencies, (Retrieved 2006), http://www.objectment or.com/resources/articles/oodmetrc.pdf.
31. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD. 2004. Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah.
32. Moore I. 2001. Jester - a JUnit test tester. XP'01: 2nd International Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering, Villasimius, Sardinia, Italy, 84-87.
33. Müller MM. 2003. Are reviews an alternative to pair programming? EASE'03: Conference on Empirical Assessment In Software Engineering, University of Keele, Keele, UK, 3-12.
34. Müller MM. 2004. Are reviews an alternative to pair programming? Empirical Software Engineering 9(4): 335-351.
35. Müller MM. 2005. Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review. Journal of Systems and Software 78(2): 166-179.
36. Nawrocki JR, Wojciechowski A. 2001. Experimental evaluation of pair programming. ESCOM'01: European Software Control and Metrics: Shaker Publishing: London, 269-276.
37. Nawrocki JR, Jasiński M, Olek L, Lange B. 2005. Pair programming vs. Side-by-side programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3792: 28-38.
38. Nosek JT. 1998. The case for collaborative programming. Communications of the ACM 41(3): 105-108.
39. Offutt J. 2006. An analysis of Jester based on published papers, (Retrieved 2006), http://www.ise.gmu.edu/~ofut/jester-anal.html.
40. Offutt AJ, Untch RH. 2001. Mutation 2000: uniting the orthogonal. Mutation Testing for the New Century. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, 34-44.
41. Offutt AJ, Pan J, Tewary K, Zhang T. 1996. An experimental evaluation of data flow and mutation testing. Software Practice and Experience 26(2): 165-176.
42. Offutt AJ, Lee A, Rothermel G, Untch RH, Zapf C. 1996. An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(2): 99-118.
43. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.
44. Smith BH, Williams L. 2007. An empirical evaluation of the MuJava mutation operators. TAICPART- MUTATION 07: Testing: Academic and Industrial Conference Practice and Research Techniques, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor UK, 193-202.
45. Sørumgård LS. 1997. Verification of process conformance in empirical studies of software development. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
46. Stevens JP. 2002. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah.
47. Tichy WF. 2000. Hints for reviewing empirical work in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 5(4): 309-312.
48. Venners B. 2007. Test-Driven Development. A Conversation with Martin Fowler, Part V, (Retrieved 2007) http://www.artima.com/intv/testdrivenP.html.
49. Walsh PJ. 1985. A measure of test case completeness. PhD thesis, University New York.
50. Williams LA, Kessler RR. 2000. All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the ACM 43(5): 108-114.
51. Williams L, Kessler R. 2002. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA.
52. Williams L, Kessler RR, Cunningham W, Jeffries R. 2000. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software 17(4): 19-25.
53. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Host M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A. 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell.
54. Zhu H, Hall PAV, May JHR. 1997. Software unit test coverage and adequacy. ACM Computing Surveys 29(4): 366-427.