Computational notebooks are intended to prioritize the needs of scientists, but little is known about how scientists interact with notebooks, what requirements drive scientists' software development processes, or what tactics scientists use to meet their requirements. We conducted an observational study of 20 scientists using Jupyter notebooks for their day-to-day tasks, finding that scientists prioritize different quality attributes depending on their goals. A qualitative analysis of their usage shows (1) a collection of goals scientists pursue with Jupyter notebooks, (2) a set of quality attributes that scientists value when they write software, and (3) tactics that scientists leverage to promote quality. In addition, we identify ways scientists incorporated AI tools into their notebook work. From our observations, we derive design recommendations for improving computational notebooks and future programming systems for scientists. Key opportunities pertain to helping scientists create and manage state, dependencies, and abstractions in their software, enabling more effective reuse of clearly-defined components.

Property-based testing (PBT) is a testing methodology with origins in the functional programming community. In recent years, PBT libraries have been developed for non-functional languages, including Python. However, to date, there is little evidence regarding how effective property-based tests are at finding bugs, and whether some kinds of property-based tests might be more effective than others. To gather this evidence, we conducted a corpus study of 426 Python programs that use Hypothesis, Python’s most popular library for PBT. We developed formal definitions for 12 categories of property-based test and implemented an intraprocedural static analysis that categorizes tests. Then, we evaluated the efficacy of test suites of 40 projects using mutation testing, and found that on average, each property-based test finds about 50 times as many mutations as the average unit test. We also identified the categories with the tests most effective at finding mutations, finding that tests that look for exceptions, that test inclusion in collections, and that check types are over 19 times more effective at finding mutations than other kinds of property-based tests. Finally, we conducted a parameter sweep study to assess the strength of property-based tests as a function of the number of random inputs generated, finding that 76% of mutations found were found within the first 20 inputs.