Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/14621
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRomano, S-
dc.contributor.authorFucci, D-
dc.contributor.authorScanniello, G-
dc.contributor.authorTurhan, B-
dc.contributor.authorJuristo, N-
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-26T15:13:37Z-
dc.date.available2016-
dc.date.available2017-05-26T15:13:37Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, 01 - 03 June 2016, pp. 1-10, (2016)en_US
dc.identifier.isbn978-1-4503-3691-8-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/14621-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Test-driven development (TDD) is an iterative software development technique where unit tests are defined before production code. Previous studies fail to analyze the values, beliefs, and assumptions that inform and shape TDD. Aim: We designed and conducted a qualitative study to understand the values, beliefs, and assumptions of TDD. In particular, we sought to understand how novice and professional software developers, arranged in pairs (a driver and a pointer), perceive and apply TDD. Method: 14 novice software developers, i.e., graduate students in Computer Science at the University of Basilicata, and six professional software developers (with one to 10 years work experience) participated in our ethnographically informed study. We asked the participants to implement a new feature for an existing software written in Java. We immersed ourselves in the context of the study, and collected data by means of contemporaneous field notes, audio recordings, and other artifacts. Results: A number of insights emerge from our analysis of the collected data, the main ones being: (i) refactoring (one of the phases of TDD) is not performed as often as the process requires and it is considered less important than other phases, (ii) the most important phase is implementation, (iii) unit tests are almost never up-to-date, (iv) participants first build a sort of mental model of the source code to be implemented and only then write test cases on the basis of this model; and (v) apart from minor differences, professional developers and students applied TDD in a similar fashion. Conclusions: Developers write quick-and-dirty production code to pass the tests and ignore refactoring.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research is supported in part by the Academy of Finland Project no. 278354. We would like to acknowledge Dr. Lucas Layman and Dr. Hakan Erdogmus, who designed the task used in the study. We thank the students and the professional developers for their participation in our ethnographically-informed study.en_US
dc.format.extent10:1 - 10:10-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherACMen_US
dc.subjectEthnographically-informed studyen_US
dc.subjectQualitative studyen_US
dc.subjectTest driven developmenten_US
dc.titleResults from an ethnographically-informed study in the context of test driven developmenten_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2915970.2915996-
dc.relation.isPartOfProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering-
pubs.notesacmid: 2915996 articleno: 10 interhash: b1a5255be31c5bcdad24238930888524 intrahash: ddd018b3e2d0bff43e26354e317c86c2 location: Limerick, Ireland numpages: 10-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Computer Science Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf11.86 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.