Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Brett Daniel
dblp:04/5890
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 5 first-author
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
5 papers |
Software testing · 59% Debugging and program repair · 28% Software maintenance and evolution · 12% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing
test repair |
0.3 | 3 | 2011 | ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests · ICSE 2011 On test repair using symbolic execution · ISSTA 2010 ReAssert: Suggesting Repairs for Broken Unit Tests · ASE 2009 |
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair |
0.2 | 2 | 2011 | ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests · ICSE 2011 On test repair using symbolic execution · ISSTA 2010 |
Debugging and program repair › automated program repair
test code repair |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | On test repair using symbolic execution · ISSTA 2010 |
Software testing › test repair
automated test repair |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | ReAssert: Suggesting Repairs for Broken Unit Tests · ASE 2009 |
Software testing › test generation
automated test generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Predicting Effectiveness of Automatic Testing Tools · ASE 2008 |
Software testing
automated testing |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Automated testing of refactoring engines · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
Software maintenance and evolution
refactoring |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Automated testing of refactoring engines · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
Software maintenance and evolution › refactoring
refactoring engines |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Automated testing of refactoring engines · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
Software testing › system software testing › language processor testing
refactoring engine testing |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Automated testing of refactoring engines · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
Software testing
unit testing |
0.1 | 2 | 2011 | ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit tests · ICSE 2011 ReAssert: Suggesting Repairs for Broken Unit Tests · ASE 2009 |
Empirical software engineering
software metrics |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Predicting Effectiveness of Automatic Testing Tools · ASE 2008 |
Software testing
test generation |
0.0 | 1 | 2007 | Automated testing of refactoring engines · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
automated repair · 0.1symbolic execution · 0.1program transformation · 0.1program metrics · 0.1decision tree · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | ReAssert: a tool for repairing broken unit testsabstractSuccessful software systems continuously change their requirements and thus code. When this happens, some existing tests get broken because they no longer reflect the intended behavior, and thus they need to be updated. Repairing broken tests can be time-consuming and difficult. Brett Daniel, Danny Dig, Tihomir Gvero, Vilas Jagannath, Johnston Jiaa, Damion Mitchell, Jurand Nogiec, Shin Hwei Tan, Darko Marinov |
ICSE | 1 |
| 2010 | On test repair using symbolic executionabstractWhen developers change a program, regression tests can fail not only due to faults in the program but also due to out-of-date test code that does not reflect the desired behavior of the program. When this occurs, it is necessary to repair test code such that the tests pass. Repairing tests manually is difficult and time consuming. We recently developed ReAssert, a tool that can automatically repair broken unit tests, but only if they lack complex control flow or operations on expected values. Brett Daniel, Tihomir Gvero, Darko Marinov |
ISSTA | 1 |
| 2009 | Reducing the Costs of Bounded-Exhaustive Testing
Vilas Jagannath, Yun Young Lee, Brett Daniel, Darko Marinov |
FASE | 3 |
| 2009 | ReAssert: Suggesting Repairs for Broken Unit TestsabstractDevelopers often change software in ways that cause tests to fail. When this occurs, developers must determine whether failures are caused by errors in the code under test or in the test code itself. In the latter case, developers must repair failing tests or remove them from the test suite. Repairing tests is time consuming but beneficial, since removing tests reduces a test suite's ability to detect regressions. Fortunately, simple program transformations can repair many failing tests automatically. We present ReAssert, a novel technique and tool that suggests repairs to failing tests' code which cause the tests to pass. Examples include replacing literal values in tests, changing assertion methods, or replacing one assertion with several. If the developer chooses to apply the repairs, ReAssert modifies the code automatically. Our experiments show that ReAssert can repair many common test failures and that its suggested repairs correspond to developers' expectations. Brett Daniel, Vilas Jagannath, Danny Dig, Darko Marinov |
ASE | 1 |
| 2008 | Predicting Effectiveness of Automatic Testing ToolsabstractAutomatic white-box test generation is a challenging problem. Many existing tools rely on complex code analyses and heuristics. As a result, structural features of an input program may impact tool effectiveness in ways that tool users and designers may not expect or understand. We develop a technique that uses structural program metrics to predict the test coverage achieved by three automatic test generation tools. We use coverage and structural metrics extracted from 11 software projects to train several decision tree classifiers. Our experiments show that these classifiers can predict high or low coverage with success rates of 82% to 94%. Brett Daniel, Marat Boshernitsan |
ASE | 1 |
| 2007 | Automated testing of refactoring enginesabstractRefactorings are behavior-preserving program transformations that improve the design of a program. Refactoring engines are tools that automate the application of refactorings: first the user chooses a refactoring to apply, then the engine checks if the transformation is safe, and if so, transforms the program. Refactoring engines are a key component of modern IDEs, and programmers rely on them to perform refactorings. A bug in the refactoring engine can have severe consequences as it can erroneously change large bodies of source code. Brett Daniel, Danny Dig, Kely Garcia, Darko Marinov |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |