Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Joshua Geiger

dblp:46/1870 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 87% Program analysis · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › regression testing
test case prioritization
0.112007
Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees · ASE 2007
Software testing › regression testing
test suite reduction
0.112007
Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees · ASE 2007
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.012007
Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees · ASE 2007

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

dynamic call tree · 0.1coverage visualization · 0.1calling context tree · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 Test suite reduction and prioritization with call trees
abstract
This paper presents a tool that (i) constructs tree-based models of a program's behavior during testing and (ii) employs these trees while reordering and reducing a test suite. Using either a dynamic call tree or a calling context tree, the test reduction component identifies a subset of the original tests that covers the same call tree paths. The prioritization technique reorders a test suite so that it covers the call tree paths more rapidly than the initial test ordering. In support of program and test suite understanding, the tool also visualizes the call trees and the coverage relationships. For a chosen case study application, the experimental results show that call tree construction only increases testing time by 13%. In comparison to the original test suite, the experiments show that (i) a prioritized suite achieves coverage much faster and (ii) a reduced test suite contains 45% fewer tests and consumes 82% less time
Adam M. Smith 0002, Joshua Geiger, Gregory M. Kapfhammer, Mary Lou Soffa
ASE2