Visual GUI testing in practice: An extended industrial case study
May 19, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Vahid Garousi, Wasif Afzal, Adem ΓaΔlar, Δ°hsan Berk IΕΔ±k, Berker Baydan, SeΓ§kin Γaylak, Ahmet Zeki Boyraz, Burak YolaΓ§an, Kadir HerkiloΔlu
arXiv ID
2005.09303
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
4
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Context: Visual GUI testing (VGT) is referred to as the latest generation GUI-based testing. It is a tool-driven technique, which uses image recognition for interacting with and asserting the behavior of the system under test. Motivated by the industrial need of a large Turkish software and systems company providing solutions in the areas of defense and IT sector, an action-research project was recently initiated to implement VGT in several teams and projects in the company. Objective: To address the above needs, we planned and carried out an empirical investigation with the goal of assessing VGT using two tools (Sikuli and JAutomate). The purpose was to determine a suitable approach and tool for VGT of a given project (software product) in the company, increase the know-how in the company's test teams. Method: Using an action-research case-study design, we investigated the use of VGT in the studied organization. Specifically, using the two selected VGT tools, we conducted a quantitative and a qualitative evaluation of VGT. Results: By assessing the list of Challenges, Problems and Limitations (CPL), proposed in previous work, in the context of our empirical study, we found that test-tool- and SUT-related CPLs were quite comparable to a previous empirical study, e.g., the synchronization between SUT and test tools were not always robust and there were failures in test tools' image recognition features. When assessing the types of test maintenance activities, when executing the automated test cases on next versions of the SUTs, for the case of the two test tools, we found that about half of the test cases (59.1% and 47.8%) failed in the next version. Conclusion: By our results, we confirm some of the previously-reported issues when conducting VGT. Further, we highlight some additional challenges in test maintenance when using VGT.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted