Artificial Intelligence helps making Quality Assurance processes leaner
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Lean processes and artificial intelligence (AI) are discussed in optimizing test management.
- Regression tests are important to ensure functionality from previous releases still works in new releases.
- Many regression tests are currently manual, making them expensive and time-consuming.
- The authors propose a semi-automated approach using machine learning (ML) as a support tool for test management.
- ML is used as a supporting machine while the human test manager selects appropriate test cases.
- The selection of regression tests is crucial and specific to each release, considering changes such as new code or features.
- Different approaches can be used to identify the right set of regression tests, including source code file level methods and test case prioritization techniques for black-box tests.
- Continuous prioritization trends in regression testing are important, and the authors aim to support it with their ML-based approach for black box regression test case prioritization.
- The paper presents an improvement in the test process through the use of AI and ML as support tools, aiming to make quality assurance processes leaner and more efficient while involving human expertise.
Authors: Alexander Poth (G-SCOP\_CPP, G-SCOP), Quirin Beck (G-SCOP\_CPP, G-SCOP), Andreas Riel (G-SCOP\_CPP, G-SCOP)
Abstract: Lean processes focus on doing only necessery things in an efficient way. Artificial intelligence and Machine Learning offer new opportunities to optimizing processes. The presented approach demonstrates an improvement of the test process by using Machine Learning as a support tool for test management. The scope is the semi-automation of the selection of regression tests. The proposed lean testing process uses Machine Learning as a supporting machine, while keeping the human test manager in charge of the adequate test case selection. 1 Introduction Many established long running projects and programs are execute regression tests during the release tests. The regression tests are the part of the release test to ensure that functionality from past releases still works fine in the new release. In many projects, a significant part of these regression tests are not automated and therefore executed manually. Manual tests are expensive and time intensive [1], which is why often only a relevant subset of all possible regression tests are executed in order to safe time and money. Depending on the software process, different approaches can be used to identify the right set of regression tests. The source code file level is a frequent entry point for this identification [2]. Advanced approaches combine different file level methods [3]. To handle black-box tests, methods like [4] or [5] can be used for test case prioritiza-tion. To decide which tests can be skipped, a relevance ranking of the tests in a regression test suite is needed. Based on the relevance a test is in or out of the regression test set for a specific release. This decision is a task of the test manager supported by experts. The task can be time-consuming in case of big (often a 4-to 5-digit number) regression test suites because the selection is specific to each release. Trends are going to continuous prioritization [6], which this work wants to support with the presented ML based approach for black box regression test case prioritization. Any regression test selection is made upon release specific changes. Changes can be new or deleted code based on refactoring or implementation of new features. But also changes on externals systems which are connected by interfaces have to be considered
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.