We apologize for a recent technical issue with our email system, which temporarily affected account activations. Accounts have now been activated. Authors may proceed with paper submissions. PhDFocusTM
CFP last date
20 November 2024
Reseach Article

A Dynamic Approach to Visualize the Impacts for Support Selective Testing on Regression Testing

by Omid Pourgalehdari
International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 58 - Number 8
Year of Publication: 2012
Authors: Omid Pourgalehdari
10.5120/9306-3535

Omid Pourgalehdari . A Dynamic Approach to Visualize the Impacts for Support Selective Testing on Regression Testing. International Journal of Computer Applications. 58, 8 ( November 2012), 41-52. DOI=10.5120/9306-3535

@article{ 10.5120/9306-3535,
author = { Omid Pourgalehdari },
title = { A Dynamic Approach to Visualize the Impacts for Support Selective Testing on Regression Testing },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { November 2012 },
volume = { 58 },
number = { 8 },
month = { November },
year = { 2012 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 41-52 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume58/number8/9306-3535/ },
doi = { 10.5120/9306-3535 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T21:01:58.174302+05:30
%A Omid Pourgalehdari
%T A Dynamic Approach to Visualize the Impacts for Support Selective Testing on Regression Testing
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 58
%N 8
%P 41-52
%D 2012
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

Keeping up with the advancement in hardware technology, the size and complexity of software systems are increasing at a rapid rate, thus, making them difficult to maintain, expand, and evolve. To alleviate such difficulties, change impact analysis (CIA) and its implementations has been the subject of research for several years. Generally, CIA facilitates regression testing. Specifically, CIA helps to estimate the potential consequences of a software change, including the affected module(s) and their data dependencies, re-testing needs, as well as the required resource planning. Historically, many CIA implementations use static analysis and traditional text-based impact reporting. Although useful, static based CIA implementations often cited as time- and effort-intensive (e. g. requiring extensive documentation/design search). Dynamic slicing is an option to address the aforementioned issues. However, the volume of analyzable data potentially impedes understanding. Visualization can be a good leverage for improving analyzability and understanding of impact analysis from dynamic slicing. In line with such a prospect, this paper offers a dynamic approach to visualize the impacts for support selective testing on regression testing.

References
  1. A. Orso, T. Apiwattanapong, et al. (2003). Leveraging Field Data for Impact Analysis and Regression Testing,"in Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference held jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT International symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Helsinki, Finland.
  2. April, A. , J. H. Hayes, et al. 2005. "Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SMmm): The Software Maintenance Process Model: Research Articles. " Journal of Software Maintenance. Evolution 17(3): 197-223.
  3. F. Cuadrado, et al. A 2008. Case Study on Software Evolution towards Service-Oriented Architecture. in Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications - Workshop.
  4. Pfleeger, S. L. , 1998. Software Engineering: Theory and Practice. : Prentice-Hall, Inc. 576.
  5. Turver, R. J. and M. Munro, 1994. An Early Impact Analysis Technique for Software Maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, 6(1): p. 35-52.
  6. Jashki, M. -A. , R. Zafarani, and E. Bagheri, 2008. Towards a more efficient static software change impact analysis method, in Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and Engineering. ACM: Atlanta, Georgia. p. 84-90.
  7. Orso, A. , et al. 2004. An Empirical Comparison of Dynamic Impact Analysis Algorithms. in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
  8. Agrawal, H. and J. R. Horgan. 1990. Dynamic Program Slicing. in Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programing Language Design and Implementation. White Plains, New York, USA: ACM.
  9. B. Korel and J. Rilling. 1997. Dynamic Program Slicing in Understanding of Program Execution. in Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Programing. Computer Dearborn, MI , USA.
  10. Ryder, B. G. and F. Tip. 2001. Change Impact Analysis for Object-Oriented Programs. in Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT Workshop on Programing Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering Snowbird, Utah, USA: ACM.
  11. Chao, L. , et al. 2007. Indexing Noncrashing Failures: A Dynamic Program Slicing based Approach. in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. , Paris, France.
  12. Zamli, K. Z. , et al. , 2009. Selective Retest, in Software Testing. Open University Malaysia (OUM). p. 90-91
  13. Jitender Kumar, Chhabra, and K. K. Aggarwal, 2006. Measurement of Intra-Class & Inter-Class Weakness for Object-Oriented Software. in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations.
  14. M. Lee, A. J. Offutt, and R. T. Alexander. 2000. Algorithmic Analysis of the Impacts of Changes to Object-Oriented Software. in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Technology of O-O Language and Systems. Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
  15. S. Gwizdala, Y. Jiang, and V. Rajlich. 2003. Jtracker - a Tool for Change Propagation in Java. in Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering.
  16. Zalewski, M. and S. Schupp. 2006. Change Impact Analysis for Generic Libraries,". in Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  17. M. Petrenko and V. Rajlich. 2009. Variable Granularity for Improving Precision of Impact Analysis,". in Proceedings of the IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension. . Vancouver, Canada.
  18. X. Ren , et al. Chianti: 2005. A Change Impact Analysis Tool for Java Programs. in Proceedings of the 27th Int. Conference on Software Engineering St. Louis, MO, USA: ACM.
  19. Badri, L. , D. St-Yves, and M. Badri. 2005. Supporting Predictive Change Impact Analysis: a Control Call Graph based Technique. in Proceedings of 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Software Engineering APSEC '05.
  20. Weiser, M. 1981. Program Slicing. in Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conference on Software Engineering,. San Diego, California, USA: IEEE Press.
  21. D. Binkley and M. Harman. 2005. Locating Dependence Clusters and Dependence Pollution. in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Maintenance . Budapest, Hungary.
  22. J. Korpi and J. Koskinen, 2007. Supporting Impact Analysis by Program Dependence Graph Based Forward Slicing. in Advances and Innovations in Sys. Computing Sciences and Sofware. Engineering, p. 197-202.
  23. R. Santelices and M. J. Harrold, 2010. Probabilistic Slicing for Predictive Impact Analysis. Georgia Tech Center for Experimental Research in Communication System.
  24. D. Binkley and D. Lawrie, 2010. Information Retrieval Applications in Software Maintenance and Evolution. in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering.
  25. S. Vaucher, H. Sahraoui, and J. Vaucher. 2008. Discovering new Change Patterns in Object-Oriented Systems. in Proceedings of the 15th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering Washington D. C.
  26. D. Poshyvanyk, et al. , 2009. Using Information Retrieval Based Coupling Measures for Impact Analysis. Empirical Software Engineering vol14: p. 5-32.
  27. Korel, B. and J. Laski, 1988. Dynamic Program Slicing. Information Process. Letter, 29(3): p. 155-163.
  28. J. Law and G. Rothermel. 2003. Whole Program Path-Based Dynamic Impact Analysis. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering.
  29. T. Apiwattanapong, A. Orso, and M. J. Harrold. 2005. Efficient and Precise Dynamic Impact Analysis Using Execute-After Sequences in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software EngineeringSant. Louis.
  30. B. Breech, et al. Online Impact Analysis via Dynamic Compilation Technology,". in Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference of Software. Maintenance.
  31. B. Breech, M. Tegtmeyer, and L. Pollock. 2006. Integrating Influence Mechanisms into Impact Analysis for Increased Precision. in Proceedings of of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.
  32. R. N. Mohamad, 2010. A Change Impact Analysis Approach Using Visualization Method, in Computer Science and Information Systems,. Malaysia University.
  33. S. Ibrahim, et al. , 2005. Implementing a Document-based Requirements Traceability: A Case Study, in IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering.
  34. S. Horwitz, T. Reps, and D. Binkley. 1988. Interprocedural Slicing using Dependence Graphs. in Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programing Language Design and Implementation. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ACM.
  35. Wilde, N. and R. Huitt, 1991. Maintenance support for object oriented programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, p. 162-170.
  36. Gupta, Y. Singh, and S. Chauhan, 2010. A Dynamic Approach to Estimate Change Impact Using Type of Change Propagation. Journal of Information. Processing System. ,6: p. 597-608.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

dynamic change impact analysis regression testing