Anticipated Test Design and Its Application to Evaluate and Select Embedded Libraries

  • Clauirton Siebra
  • Carla Nascimento
  • Leonardo Sodre
  • Antônio Cavalcanti
  • Daniel Barros
  • Fernando Lima
  • Fernando Cruz
  • Fábio Q. B. da Silva
  • Andre L. M. Santos
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 722)


Code refactoring usually generates problems in other parts of the code that had already been validated. A solution is to use an anticipated test design methodology, where unit tests are first created to each module/class/method before their modification. Thus, developers are able to ensure the correct execution of functions after their refactoring. Our work applies this strategy to the development of a set of libraries that are used in several other projects. As developers have to modify the initial implementation of these libraries, to adapt such libraries to different needs, it is important to ensure that the libraries’ functions are still properly working and verify if the efficiency of the algorithms was modified. Results show that this approach has increased the confidence of developers in modifying a library and generating several implementations of such library, so that the best implementation could be selected using the same set of unit tests.


Anticipated design Test generation Test unit Continuous integration Agile methods 



The authors would like to thank the support received from the SIDI/Samsung team, in particular to Helder Pinho. Professor Fabio Q. B. da Silva holds a research grant from the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), project #314523/2009-0.


  1. 1.
    Korel, B.: Automated software test data generation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 16(8), 870–879 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anand, S., Burke, E.K., Chen, T.Y, Clark, J., Cohen, M.B., Grieskamp, W., Harman, M. Harrold, M.J., McMinn, P.: An orchestrated survey of methodologies for automated software test case generation. J. Syst. Softw. 86(8):1978–2001 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rafi, D.M., Moses, K.R. K., Petersen, K., Mäntylä, M.V.: Benefits and limitations of automated software testing: Systematic literature review and practitioner survey. In: Proceedings of the 7th Int. Workshop on Automation of Software Test, pp. 36–42 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berner, S., Weber, R., Keller, R.: Observations and lessons learned from automated testing. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 571–579 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wissink, T., Amaro, C.: Successful test automation for software maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 265–266 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Persson, C., Yilmazturk, N.: Establishment of automated regression testing at abb: Industrial experience report on avoiding the pitfalls. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 112–121 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siebra, C., Gouveia, T., Sodre, L., Silva, F.Q.B., Santos, A.L.M.: The anticipated test design and its use in legacy code refactoring: lessons learned from a real experiment. In: 2016 International Conference on Information Technology for Organizations Development (IT4OD), Fez, pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beydeda, S.: Research in testing COTS components—built-in testing approaches. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mao, C.: Built-in regression testing for component-based software systems. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, vol. 2, pp. 723–728 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, Y., Patel, D., King, G., Court, I., Staples, G., Ross, M., Fayad, M.: On built-in test reuse in object-oriented framework design. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(1), 7–12 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Binder, R.: Design for testability in object-oriented systems. Commun. ACM 37(9), 87–101 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mariani, L., Pezzé, M.: A technique for verifying component-based software. In: Proceedings of the Int. Workshop on Test and Analysis of Component Based Systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 116, pp. 17–30 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erdogmus, H., Morisio, M., Torchiano, M.: On the effectiveness of the test-first approach to programming. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(3), 226–237 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muller, M., Hagner, O.: Experiment about test-first programming. IEEE Proc. Softw. 149(5), 131–136 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pancur, M., Ciglaric, M., Trampus, M., Vidmar, T.: Towards empirical evaluation of test-driven development in a university environment. In: Proceedings of EUROCON 2003, Computer as a Tool, vol. 8, no. 2, 83–86 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaufmann, R., Janzen, D.: Implications of test-driven development: a pilot study. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 298–299 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janzen, D.: Software architecture improvement through test-driven development. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, pp. 222–223 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suárez-Cabal, M., De La Riva, C., Tuya, J.: Populating test databases for testing SQL queries. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 8(2), 164–171 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruno, N., Chaudhuri, S.: Flexible database generators. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Very large Databases, pp. 1097–1107 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khalek, S., Elkarablieh, B., Laleye, Y., Khurshid, S.: Query-aware test generation using a relational constraint solver. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 238–247 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stolberg, S.: Enabling agile testing through continuous integration. In: IEEE Agile Conference, AGILE’09, pp. 369–374 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, H., Hsu, S., Sheen, G.: A fuzzy-based decision-making procedure for data warehouse system selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 32(3), 939–953 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoon, K., Hwang, C.: Multiple Attribute Decision-Making: An Introduction. Sage Publisher (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jadhava, A., Sonar, R.: Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages: a hybrid knowledge based system approach. J. Syst. Softw. 84(8), 1394–1407 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mizuno, O., Kawashima, N., Kawamoto, K.: Fault-prone module prediction approaches using identifiers in source code. Int. J. Softw. Innov. 3(1), 36–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deveaux, D., Frison, P., Jézéquel, J.: Increase software trustability with self-testable classes in Java. In: Proceedings of the 13th Australian Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 3–11 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saifan, A.A., Alsukhni, E., Alawneh, H., Sbaih, A.: Test Case Reduction Using Data Mining Technique. Int. J. Softw. Innov. 4(4), 56–70 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clauirton Siebra
    • 1
  • Carla Nascimento
    • 2
  • Leonardo Sodre
    • 2
  • Antônio Cavalcanti
    • 2
  • Daniel Barros
    • 2
  • Fernando Lima
    • 2
  • Fernando Cruz
    • 2
  • Fábio Q. B. da Silva
    • 3
  • Andre L. M. Santos
    • 3
  1. 1.Informatics CenterFederal University of ParaibaJoao PessoaBrazil
  2. 2.CIn/Samsung Laboratory of Research and DevelopmentRecifeBrazil
  3. 3.Centro de InformáticaUniversidade Federal de PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations