15 Mar
2018
15 Mar
'18
9:30 a.m.
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and xwiki-rendering
and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score threshold
(exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
15 Mar
15 Mar
11:26 a.m.
+1
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
11:38 a.m.
+1
2018-03-15 11:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
+1
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool
(Descartes,
based on Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates
a mutation score for your tests, defining how good the tests are. Technical
Descartes performs some extreme mutations on the code under test (e.g.
remove content of void methods, return true for methods returning a
boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If
the test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and
thus its mutation score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons
and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce
the mutation score threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and
strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software
engineering a bit
further. I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I
propose to do the work and test this for over 2-3 months and see how well
it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it works or not
(i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report
at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/
MutationTestingDescartes/report.png
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
11:48 a.m.
Sounds interesting,
+1.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool
> (Descartes, based on Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates
> a mutation score for your tests, defining how good the tests are. Technical
> Descartes performs some extreme mutations on the code under test (e.g.
> remove content of void methods, return true for methods returning a
> boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If
> the test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and
> thus its mutation score decreases.
> >
> > So in short:
> > * Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
> > * Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
> >
> > Both provide a percentage value.
> >
> > I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons
> and xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce
> the mutation score threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and
> strategy).
> >
> > I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software
> engineering a bit further. I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I
> propose to do the work and test this for over 2-3 months and see how well
> it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it works or not
> (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
> causes).
> >
> > Here’s my +1 to try this out.
> >
> > Some links:
> > * pitest: http://pitest.org/
> > * descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
> > * http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
> > * http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
> >
> > If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report
> at http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/
> MutationTestingDescartes/report.png
> >
> > Please cast your votes.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
11:49 a.m.
+1
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Sounds interesting,
+1.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool
> (Descartes, based on Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It
generates
a mutation score for your tests, defining how
good the tests are.
Technical
Descartes performs some extreme mutations on the
code under test (e.g.
remove content of void methods, return true for methods returning a
boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes).
If
the test continues to pass then it means it’s not
killing the mutant and
thus its mutation score decreases.
and
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons
and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce
the mutation score threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold strategy).
MutationTestingDescartes
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software
engineering a bit
further. I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I
propose to do the work and test this for over 2-3 months and see how well
it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it works or not
(i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
>
> Here’s my +1 to try this out.
>
> Some links:
> * pitest: http://pitest.org/
> * descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
> * http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
> * http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report
at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/
MutationTestingDescartes/report.png
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
16 Mar
16 Mar
9:55 a.m.
+1
Thanks,
Marius
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+1
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
well
Sounds interesting,
+1.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
and
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool
> (Descartes, based on Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It
generates
a mutation score for your tests, defining how
good the tests are.
Technical
Descartes performs some extreme mutations on the
code under test (e.g.
remove content of void methods, return true for methods returning a
boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes).
If
> the test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant > thus its mutation score decreases.
> >
> > So in short:
> > * Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
> > * Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
> >
> > Both provide a percentage value.
> >
> > I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for
xwiki-commons
> and xwiki-rendering and fail the build when
new code is added that
reduce
the
mutation score threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold
and
> strategy).
> >
> > I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software
> engineering a bit further. I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I
> propose to do the work and test this for over 2-3 months and see how > it works or not. At that time we can then
decide whether it works or
not
> (i.e whether the gains it brings are more
important than the problems
it
> causes).
> >
> > Here’s my +1 to try this out.
> >
> > Some links:
> > * pitest: http://pitest.org/
> > * descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
> > * http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/
ControllingTestQuality
MutationTestingDescartes
> >
> > If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score
report
at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/
MutationTestingDescartes/report.png
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
27 Mar
27 Mar
7:32 p.m.
FYI I’ve implemented it locally for all modules of xwiki-commons and did some build time
measurements:
* With pitest/descartes: 37:16 minutes
* Without pitest/descartes 5:10 minutes
So that’s a pretty important hit….
So I think one strategy could be to not run pitest/descartes by default in the quality
profile (i.e. have it off by default with
<xwiki.pitest.skip>true</xwiki.pitest.skip>) and run it on the CI, from time
to time, like once per day for example, or once per week.
Small issue: I need to find/test a way to run a crontab type of job in a Jenkins pipeline
script. I know how to do in theory but I need to test it and verify it works. I still have
some doubts ATM...
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
8:09 p.m.
On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:32, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
FYI I’ve implemented it locally for all modules of xwiki-commons and did some build time
measurements:
* With pitest/descartes: 37:16 minutes
* Without pitest/descartes 5:10 minutes
Actually I was able to reduce the time to 15:12 minutes with configuring pitest with 4
threads.
Thanks
-Vincent
So that’s a pretty important hit….
So I think one strategy could be to not run pitest/descartes by default in the quality
profile (i.e. have it off by default with
<xwiki.pitest.skip>true</xwiki.pitest.skip>) and run it on the CI, from time
to time, like once per day for example, or once per week.
Small issue: I need to find/test a way to run a crontab type of job in a Jenkins pipeline
script. I know how to do in theory but I need to test it and verify it works. I still have
some doubts ATM...
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
28 Mar
28 Mar
1:25 p.m.
If you’re curious I’ve also added some more information at
https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes/issues/54
ATM, and even with a time of “only” 10mn to run pitest/descartes on xwiki-commons, it’s
still too much IMO so I’ll work on turning it off by default but having a job to run it on
the CI.
Let me know if you have remarks.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 27 Mar 2018, at 20:09, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:32, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
FYI I’ve implemented it locally for all modules of xwiki-commons and did some build time
measurements:
* With pitest/descartes: 37:16 minutes
* Without pitest/descartes 5:10 minutes
Actually I was able to reduce the time to 15:12 minutes with configuring pitest with 4
threads.
Thanks
-Vincent
So that’s a pretty important hit….
So I think one strategy could be to not run pitest/descartes by default in the quality
profile (i.e. have it off by default with
<xwiki.pitest.skip>true</xwiki.pitest.skip>) and run it on the CI, from time
to time, like once per day for example, or once per week.
Small issue: I need to find/test a way to run a crontab type of job in a Jenkins pipeline
script. I know how to do in theory but I need to test it and verify it works. I still have
some doubts ATM...
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
3:39 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
If you’re curious I’ve also added some more
information at https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes/issues/54
ATM, and even with a time of “only” 10mn to run pitest/descartes on xwiki-commons, it’s
still too much IMO so I’ll work on turning it off by default but having a job to run it on
the CI.
Sounds good. I agree that we can't enable it all the time given the time lost.
Let me know if you have remarks.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 27 Mar 2018, at 20:09, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:32, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
FYI I’ve implemented it locally for all modules of xwiki-commons and did some build time
measurements:
* With pitest/descartes: 37:16 minutes
* Without pitest/descartes 5:10 minutes
Actually I was able to reduce the time to 15:12 minutes with configuring pitest with 4
threads.
Thanks
-Vincent
So that’s a pretty important hit….
So I think one strategy could be to not run pitest/descartes by default in the quality
profile (i.e. have it off by default with
<xwiki.pitest.skip>true</xwiki.pitest.skip>) and run it on the CI, from time
to time, like once per day for example, or once per week.
Small issue: I need to find/test a way to run a crontab type of job in a Jenkins pipeline
script. I know how to do in theory but I need to test it and verify it works. I still have
some doubts ATM...
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
4 Apr
4 Apr
4:14 p.m.
FYI I’ve now committed this on issue https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XCOMMONS-1385 for
xwiki-commons.
And I’ve created an adhoc job at http://ci.xwiki.org/job/xwiki-commons_pitest/ which
executes PIT/Descartes (to be moved to our Jenkins pipeline later on).
Let’s now make sure we fix the build when this job breaks and verify if the strategy works
or not!
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
22 May
22 May
2:10 p.m.
Note: Now that this is done for xwiki-commons, I’d like to also do that for
xwiki-rendering when I get the time.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 4 Apr 2018, at 16:14, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
FYI I’ve now committed this on issue https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XCOMMONS-1385 for
xwiki-commons.
And I’ve created an adhoc job at http://ci.xwiki.org/job/xwiki-commons_pitest/ which
executes PIT/Descartes (to be moved to our Jenkins pipeline later on).
Let’s now make sure we fix the build when this job breaks and verify if the strategy
works or not!
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
6 Jul
6 Jul
2:44 p.m.
On 22 May 2018, at 14:10, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Note: Now that this is done for xwiki-commons, I’d like to also do that for
xwiki-rendering when I get the time.
It’s now done for xwiki-rendering too.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks
-Vincent
On 4 Apr 2018, at 16:14, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
FYI I’ve now committed this on issue https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XCOMMONS-1385 for
xwiki-commons.
And I’ve created an adhoc job at http://ci.xwiki.org/job/xwiki-commons_pitest/ which
executes PIT/Descartes (to be moved to our Jenkins pipeline later on).
Let’s now make sure we fix the build when this job breaks and verify if the strategy
works or not!
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:30, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on
Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests,
defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on
the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods
returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the
test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation
score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and
xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score
threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further.
I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over
2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it
works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it
causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
2255
days inactive
2368
days old
12 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Eduard Moraru -
Guillaume Delhumeau -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol