Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet

Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Prevalence of Code Review Guidelines for GUI-Based Testing in Open-Source
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2916-4020
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7903-8236
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7526-3727
2025 (English)In: Information and Software Technology, ISSN 0950-5849, E-ISSN 1873-6025Article in journal (Other academic) Submitted
Abstract [en]

Context: Code review has become a core practice in collaborative software engineering, helping ensure code quality, detecting potential bugs, and supporting communication among developers. Prior research has shown that code review practices differ between production and test code, suggesting that established code review guidelines may fall short in the context of test and GUI-based test code. Particularly, GUI-based testing lacks adequate support during the code review process. To address this, we proposed a set of code review guidelines specifically designed for reviewing GUI-based test files, which, however, have not yet been empirically evaluated, limiting their practical relevance. 

Objective: This study empirically assesses the extent to which code review comments on GUI-based tests align (explicitly or implicitly) with the concerns captured by the proposed guidelines, and uses the findings to refine the guideline set.

Method: To achieve this, we sampled code review comments discussing GUI-based test files across 100 open-source projects and manually analyzed 1000 pull requests to determine to what extent the reviewers' comments align with the proposed guidelines.

Results: Review comments aligned with the proposed guidelines in 808 of 1000 pull requests. We found empirical evidence for 25 of the 33 guidelines. The most frequently observed guideline concerns the correct use of testing techniques and exception handling, particularly regarding locators, explicit waits, and timeout behavior.

Conclusion: The observed alignment suggests that the proposed guidelines capture concerns articulated in practice, indicating practical relevance for GUI-based test reviews. This represents an initial step towards providing empirical validation of the proposed guidelines, highlighting their potential value in enhancing the quality of GUI-based test reviews.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2025.
National Category
Software Engineering
Research subject
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-28725DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5547512OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-28725DiVA, id: diva2:2003977
Part of project
SERT- Software Engineering ReThought, Knowledge FoundationAvailable from: 2025-10-06 Created: 2025-10-06 Last updated: 2025-10-16Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Code Review of GUI-based Tests
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Code Review of GUI-based Tests
2025 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Background: Modern software systems are large and complex, requiring collaboration among developers with diverse skills to manage this complexity. Code review is an essential collaborative software engineering practice in which changes are discussed before they are integrated into the codebase, enhancing code quality and promoting knowledge sharing. GUI-based testing is a technique that verifies and validates a system’s behavior through its GUI by simulating user interactions. Like production code, it requires collaboration, as tests are created, reviewed, and maintained alongside production code. Code review practices for tests differ from those for production code. Omitting reviews of tests can lower their quality and increase maintenance costs. However, practices for reviewing GUI-based tests are not well understood, as academic literature mainly focuses on production code and low-level tests.

Objective: We aim to advance the understanding and practice of code review of GUI-based tests by (a) identifying code review guidelines; (b) investigating the specific practices, challenges, and information needs; (c) finding empirical evidence supporting the proposed guidelines; and (d) providing an outlook on how code review may evolve in the future.

Methods: First, we conduct a literature review of white and gray literature to identify guidelines for source and test code, and synthesize them for GUI-based tests. Next, we perform qualitative interviews with software testing professionals to identify practices, challenges, and information needs when reviewing GUI-based tests. To find empirical evidence for the proposed guidelines, we mine open-source software repositories. Finally, we conduct a questionnaire survey to gather practitioners’ expectations about the future importance of code reviews.

Results: We synthesized 33 guidelines for GUI-based tests from literature sources. In analyzing code review comments from open-source repositories, we found empirical evidence supporting 25 out of the 33 proposed guidelines. Practitioners acknowledge the importance of code reviews, but lack defined practices for reviewing GUI-based tests. We identified four practices, six challenges, and four information needs related to reviewing GUI-based tests. The survey results indicate that code review will remain an essential practice with an anticipated increase in code review activities, including those for GUI-based tests.

Conclusion: This thesis advances the understanding and practice of code review for GUI-based tests to improve both review effectiveness and the quality of the tests underreview. We present a set of empirically grounded guidelines derived from literature and refined through the analysis of code review comments of open-source repositories. Our research investigates current practices for reviewing GUI-based tests, highlighting the specific challenges and information needs that distinguish these reviews from those for production code. Finally, we highlight the relevance of our research for the future.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Karlskrona: Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, 2025. p. 204
Series
Blekinge Institute of Technology Doctoral Dissertation Series, ISSN 1653-2090 ; 2025:14
Keywords
Code review, software inspection, GUI testing, GUI-based testing, guidelines, best practices
National Category
Software Engineering
Research subject
Software Engineering
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:bth-28772 (URN)978-91-7295-515-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2025-11-24, J1630, Valhallavägen 1, Karlskrona, 09:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2025-10-28 Created: 2025-10-16 Last updated: 2025-10-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(280 kB)53 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 280 kBChecksum SHA-512
e0596843518b520212d464cc80860169414922b05e13668e955d75f043f7d96fccff1e8db480fb2ab31bfc2f6376de3a36c9ac784ebb9a935949aa4a1f69b06f
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bauer, AndreasAngermeir, FlorianAlégroth, Emil
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
In the same journal
Information and Software Technology
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 1022 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf