A Survey on What Developers Think About Testing

Software is infamous for its poor quality and frequent occurrence of bugs. While there is no doubt that thorough testing is an appropriate answer to ensure sufficient quality, the poor state of software generally suggests that developers may not always engage as thoroughly with testing as they should. This observation aligns with the prevailing belief that developers simply do not like writing tests. In order to determine the truth of this belief, we conducted a comprehensive survey with 21 questions aimed at (1) assessing developers' current engagement with testing and (2) identifying factors influencing their inclination toward testing; that is, whether they would actually like to test more but are inhibited by their work environment, or whether they would really prefer to test even less if given the choice. Drawing on 284 responses from professional software developers, we uncover reasons that positively and negatively impact developers' motivation to test. Notably, reasons for motivation to write more tests encompass not only a general pursuit of software quality but also personal satisfaction. However, developers nevertheless perceive testing as mundane and tend to prioritize other tasks. One approach emerging from the responses to mitigate these negative factors is by providing better recognition for developers' testing efforts

PlayTest: A Gamified Test Generator for Games

Games are usually created incrementally, requiring repeated testing of the same scenarios, which is a tedious and error-prone task for game developers. Therefore, we aim to alleviate this game testing process by encapsulating it into a game called Playtest, which transforms the tiring testing process into a competitive game with a purpose. Playtest automates the generation of valuable test cases based on player actions, without the players even realising it. We envision the use of Playtest to crowdsource the task of testing games by giving players access to the respective games through our tool in the playtesting phases during the development process.Comment: 4 pages with 4 figures, to be published in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gamification in Software Development, Verification, and Validation 202

Code Critters: A Block-Based Testing Game

Learning to program has become common in schools, higher education and individual learning. Although testing is an important aspect of programming, it is often neglected in education due to a perceived lack of time and knowledge, or simply because testing is considered less important or fun. To make testing more engaging, we therefore introduce Code Critters, a Tower Defense game based on testing concepts: The aim of the game is to place magic mines along the route taken by small "critters" from their home to a tower, such that the mines distinguish between critters executing correct code from those executing buggy code. Code is shown and edited using a block-based language to make the game accessible for younger learners. The mines encode test inputs as well as test oracles, thus making testing an integral and fun component of the game

Construction system for multi story temporary accommodation building at timber for Sochi 2014

Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung der Verfasserin/des VerfassersEin Bau für die Olympischen Winterspiel 2014 in Sochi. Für den Bereich Ski Alpin Damen und Herren unter den Richtlinien des IOC (Internationales Olympisches Komitee) es ist auch an eine Nutzung für die Winter Paralympics gedacht worden. (barrierefrei). Die ganze Konstruktion wird in Holz ausgeführt, dadurch kann ein schneller Auf- und Abbau gewährleistet werden.(temporär)13

Replication package for paper "Gamifying a Software Testing Course with Continuous Integration"

Source code of the coverage-guided fuzzer (folder coverage-guided-fuzzing) Source code of the line-coverage analyzer (folder line-coverage-analyser) The scripts to analyze the data from the use of Blinded (folder Evaluation) The examples used for the output of the Analyzer (folder examples) The data/statistics from the use of Blinded for both projects (coverage.txt and fuzzer.txt) The meta information of the Analyzer 2019, Analyzer 2022 and Fuzzer for comparison (generalInformation_three.csv) The meta information of the Analyzer 2022 and Fuzzer for comparison (generalInformation_both.csv) The meta information of the Analyzer 2019 and Analyzer 2022 for comparison (generalInformation_lca.csv) The script for comparison between the Analyzer 2019, Analyzer 2022 and Fuzzer (evaluation_three.R) The script for comparison between the Analyzer 2022 and Fuzzer (evaluation.R) The script for comparison between the Analyzer 2019 and Analyzer 2022 (comparison.R) The survey questions (survey.pdf) The survey answers (survey_testing.csv) </p