Fast Feedback from Automated Tests Executed with the Product Build

  • Martin EylEmail author
  • Clements Reichmann
  • Klaus Müller-Glaser
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 238)


Nowadays Continuous Integration (CI) is a very common practice with many advantages and it is used in many software projects. For large software projects checking out the source code, building the product and testing the product build via automated tests during CI can take a long time (e.g. many hours). So the software developers do not get fast feedback about their changes. Often the test report contains the results of many changes from several software developers or the feedback is not accurate enough according to the developer’s source code changes. This paper describes a novel approach to reduce the feedback time and to provide test results for only these changes the developer has committed.


Continuous integration Automated testing Test case prioritization 


  1. 1.
    Lindstrom, L., Jeffries, R.: Extreme programming and agile software development methodologies. Inf. Syst. Manag. 21(3), 41–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mogyorodi, G.: Requirements-based testing: an overview. In: International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Building a better bug-trap. Economist Magazine, June 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fowler, M., Foemmel, M.: Continuous integration. (Thought-Works) (2006).
  5. 5.
    Duvall, P.M., Matyas, S., Glover, A.: Continuous Integration: Improving Software Quality and Reducing Risk. Pearson Education, United States (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, K.: Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer 32(10), 70–77 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McConnell, S.: Daily build and smoke test. IEEE Softw. 13(4), 144 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elbaum, S., Malishevsky, A.G., Rothermel, G.: Prioritizing test cases for regression testing, vol. 25(5). ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Storm, T.: Backtracking incremental continuous integration. In: 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2008, CSMR 2008. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Eclipse Foundation.
  12. 12.
    Collins-Sussman, B., Fitzpatrick, B., Pilato, M.: Version Control with Subversion. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Asklund, U., Bendix, L., Ekman, T.: Software configuration management practices for eXtreme programming teams (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srikanth, H., Williams, L., Osborne, J.: System test case prioritization of new and regression test cases. In: 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Beena, R., Sarala, S.: Code Coverage Based Test Case Selection and Prioritization (2013). arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.2083
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Saff, D., Ernst, M.D.: Continuous testing in Eclipse. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Thiele, E.: CompilerCache.
  22. 22.
    Yoon, M., et al.: A test case prioritization through correlation of requirement and risk. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 5(10), 823–835 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rothermel, G., et al.: Test case prioritization: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, 1999 (ICSM 1999). EEE (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Eyl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Clements Reichmann
    • 1
  • Klaus Müller-Glaser
    • 2
  1. 1.Vector Informatik GmbHStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Information Processing TechnologyKITKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations