Introducing Automated Unit Testing into Open Source Projects

  • Christopher Oezbek
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 319)


To learn how to introduce automated unit testing into existing medium scale Open Source projects, a long-term field experiment was performed with the Open Source project FreeCol. Results indicate that (1) introducing testing is both beneficial to the project and feasible for an outside innovator, (2) testing can enhance communication between developers, (3) an active stance is important for engaging the project participants to fill a newly vacant position left by a withdrawal of the innovator.


  1. 1.
    Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M.D., Nielsen, P.A.: Action research. Commun. ACM 42(1), 94–97 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ducheneaut, N.: Socialization in an Open Source Software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 14(4), 323–368 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghosh, R.A., Glott, R., Krieger, B., Robles, G.: Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and study – FLOSS – Part 4: Survey of developers. Final Report, International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands; Berlecon Research GmbH Berlin, Germany (June 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hahsler, M.: A quantitative study of the adoption of design patterns by Open Source software developers. In: Koch, S. (ed.) Free/Open Source Software Development, ch. 5, pp. 103–123. Idea Group Publishing, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrison, G.W., List, J.A.: Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42(4), 1009–1055 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kagdi, H., Collard, M.L., Maletic, J.I.: A survey and taxonomy of approaches for mining software repositories in the context of software evolution. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 19(2), 77–131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    LaToza, T.D., Venolia, G., DeLine, R.: Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits. In: ICSE 2006: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 492–501. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mockus, A., Fielding, R.T., Herbsleb, J.: Two case studies of Open Source Software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(3), 309–346 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oezbek, C., Prechelt, L.: On understanding how to introduce an innovation to an Open Source project. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (ICSEW 2007), Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007); reprinted in UPGRADE, The European Journal for the Informatics Professional 8(6), 40–44 (December 2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulson, J.W., Succi, G., Eberlein, A.: An empirical study of open-source and closed-source software products. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(4), 246–256 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D.: The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior 20(2), 201–223 (2004); The Compass of Human-Computer InteractionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quintela García, L.: Die Kontaktaufnahme mit Open Source Software-Projekten. Eine Fallstudie. Bachelor thesis, Freie Universität Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raymond, E.S.: The cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday 3(3) (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whittaker, J.A.: What is software testing? And why is it so hard? IEEE Software 17(1), 70–79 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu, H., Hall, P.A.V., May, J.H.R.: Software unit test coverage and adequacy. ACM Comput. Surv. 29(4), 366–427 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Oezbek
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations