As a software system evolves, its test suite can accumulate redundancies over time. Test minimization aims at removing redundant test cases. However, current techniques remove whole test cases from the test suite using test adequacy criteria, such as code coverage. This has two limitations, namely (1) by removing a whole test case the corresponding test assertions are also lost, which can inhibit test suite effectiveness, (2) the issue of partly redundant test cases, i.e., tests with redundant test statements, is ignored. We propose a novel approach for fine-grained test case minimization. Our analysis is based on the inference of a test suite model that enables automated test reorganization within test cases. It enables removing redundancies at the test statement level, while preserving the coverage and test assertions of the test suite. We evaluated our approach, implemented in a tool called Testler, on the test suites of 15 open source projects. Our analysis shows that over 4,639 (24%) of the tests in these test suites are partly redundant, with over 11,819 redundant test statements in total. Our results show that Testler removes 43% of the redundant test statements, reducing the number of partly redundant tests by 52%. As a result, test suite execution time is reduced by up to 37% (20% on average), while maintaining the original statement coverage, branch coverage, test assertions, and fault detection capability.

Testing aims at detecting (regression) bugs in production code. However, testing code is just as likely to contain bugs as the code it tests. Buggy test cases can silently miss bugs in the production code or loudly ring false alarms when the production code is correct. We present the first empirical study of bugs in test code to characterize their prevalence and root cause categories. We mine the bug repositories and version control systems of 211 Apache Software Foundation (ASF) projects and find 5,556 test-related bug reports. We (1) compare properties of test bugs with production bugs, such as active time and fixing effort needed, and (2) qualitatively study 443 randomly sampled test bug reports in detail and categorize them based on their impact and root causes. Our results show that (1) around half of all the projects had bugs in their test code; (2) the majority of test bugs are false alarms, i.e., test fails while the production code is correct, while a minority of these bugs result in silent horrors, i.e., test passes while the production code is incorrect; (3) incorrect and missing assertions are the dominant root cause of silent horror bugs; (4) semantic (25%), flaky (21%), environment-related (18%) bugs are the dominant root cause categories of false alarms; (5) the majority of false alarm bugs happen in the exercise portion of the tests, and (6) developers contribute more actively to fixing test bugs and test bugs are fixed sooner compared to production bugs. In addition, we evaluate whether existing bug detection tools can detect bugs in test code.