The evidence for the prevalence of test smells at the unit testing level has relied on the accuracy of detection tools, which have seen intense research in the last two decades. The Eager Test smell, one of the most prevalent, is often identified using simplified detection rules that practitioners find inadequate. We aim to improve the rules for detecting the Eager Test smell. We reviewed the literature on test smells to analyze the definitions and detection rules of the Eager Test smell. We proposed a novel, unambiguous definition of the test smell and a heuristic to address the limitations of the existing rules. We evaluated our heuristic against existing detection rules by manually applying it to 300 unit test cases in Java. Our review identified 56 relevant studies. We found that inadequate interpretations of original definitions of the Eager Test smell led to imprecise detection rules, resulting in a high level of disagreement in detection outcomes. Also, our heuristic detected patterns of eager and non-eager tests that existing rules missed. Our heuristic captures the essence of the Eager Test smell more precisely; hence, it may address practitioners’ concerns regarding the adequacy of existing detection rules. • An overview of the definitions and detection rules of the Eager Test smell. • A novel, unambiguous definition of Eager Test based on the original definitions. • A novel heuristic with pseudocode for detecting eager tests. • The identification of common patterns of eager tests and non-eager tests.

Abstract The quality of the test suites and the constituent test cases significantly impacts confidence in software testing. While research has identified several quality attributes of test cases and test suites, there is a need for a better understanding of their relative importance in practice. We investigate practitioners’ perceptions regarding the relative importance of quality attributes of test cases and test suites and the challenges that they face in ensuring the perceived important quality attributes. To capture the practitioners’ perceptions, we conducted an industrial survey using a questionnaire based on the quality attributes identified in an extensive literature review. We used a sampling strategy that leverages LinkedIn to draw a large and heterogeneous sample of professionals with experience in software testing. We collected 354 responses from practitioners with a wide range of experience (from less than one year to 42 years of experience). We found that the majority of practitioners rated Fault Detection, Usability, Maintainability, Reliability, and Coverage to be the most important quality attributes. Resource Efficiency, Reusability, and Simplicity received the most divergent opinions, which, according to our analysis, depend on the software-testing contexts. Also, we identified common challenges that apply to the important attributes, namely inadequate definition, lack of useful metrics, lack of an established review process, and lack of external support. The findings point out where practitioners actually need further support with respect to achieving high-quality test cases and test suites under different software testing contexts. Hence, the findings can serve as a guideline for academic researchers when looking for research directions on the topic. Furthermore, the findings can be used to encourage companies to provide more support to practitioners to achieve high-quality test cases and test suites.

Context: Modern software development increasingly relies on software testing for an ever more frequent delivery of high quality software. This puts high demands on the quality of the central artifacts in software testing, test suites and test cases. Objective: We aim to develop a comprehensive model for capturing the dimensions of test case/suite quality, which are relevant for a variety of perspectives. Methods: We have carried out a systematic literature review to identify and analyze existing secondary studies on quality aspects of software testing artifacts. Results: We identified 49 relevant secondary studies. Of these 49 studies, less than half did some form of quality appraisal of the included primary studies and only 3 took into account the quality of the primary study when synthesizing the results. We present an aggregation of the context dimensions and factors that can be used to characterize the environment in which the test case/suite quality is investigated. We also provide a comprehensive model of test case/suite quality with definitions for the quality attributes and measurements based on findings in the literature and ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Conclusion: The test artifact quality model presented in the paper can be used to support test artifact quality assessment and improvement initiatives in practice. Furthermore, the model can also be used as a framework for documenting context characteristics to make research results more accessible for research and practice.