Arthur Lisboa Corgozinho

dblp:364/7521 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2027
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2027 Property-based testing in Python: empirical insights
abstract
Abstract Property-Based Testing (PBT) automatically generates test inputs to validate properties of programs, shifting developers’ effort from writing examples to specifying invariants. While the technique has gained popularity in Python through the Hypothesis framework, little is known about how developers adopt and use it in practice. This paper reports on three empirical studies. First, we analyzed 367 PBTs from 244 Python projects, classifying them into nine property categories and quantifying their use of Hypothesis constructs. We found that Test Oracle properties dominate (29.97%), and that PBTs are generally concise (median 14 LOC), relying heavily on built-in strategies (75.20%), but also on external (22.62%) and internal (17.17%) ones. Second, we studied 213 Stack Overflow posts tagged with PBT, revealing that the main challenges developers face concern data generation strategies (36.62%), especially for composite and tabular data (24.36%). Finally, we evaluated Ghostwriter, Hypothesis’s automated test generator, against 203 tests from our dataset; only 18.23% were fully automatable, while most required partial adaptation (30.05%) or were incompatible (51.72%). Together, our findings provide the largest empirical characterization of PBT in Python to date, highlight developers’ difficulties in adopting the technique, and expose limitations of current tool support.
Isadora de Oliveira, Arthur Lisboa Corgozinho, Henrique Rocha, Marco Túlio Valente
Empir. Softw. Eng.2
2023 How Developers Implement Property-Based Tests
abstract
Property-based testing (PBT) is an interesting alternative to example-based testing where the inputs are randomly generated by the testing tool. In PBT, we check properties that always hold for any input. Despite being a promising testing category, to the best of our knowledge, we still lack studies that investigate in the wild how developers are using PBT in practice. In this paper, we report the preliminary results of a study we are conducting on the usage of PBT. We created a dataset of 30 popular Python repositories using Hypothesis (a PBT tool) and selected a random sample of 86 tests. We manually analyzed these tests to understand the most commonly implemented properties and also to reveal the most used features to create them.
Arthur Lisboa Corgozinho, Marco Túlio Valente, Henrique Rocha
ICSME1