skip to main content
10.1145/3460319.3464827acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesisstaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Artifacts Available / v1.1

Semantic matching of GUI events for test reuse: are we there yet?

Published:11 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

GUI testing is an important but expensive activity. Recently, research on test reuse approaches for Android applications produced interesting results. Test reuse approaches automatically migrate human-designed GUI tests from a source app to a target app that shares similar functionalities. They achieve this by exploiting semantic similarity among textual information of GUI widgets. Semantic matching of GUI events plays a crucial role in these approaches. In this paper, we present the first empirical study on semantic matching of GUI events. Our study involves 253 configurations of the semantic matching, 337 unique queries, and 8,099 distinct GUI events. We report several key findings that indicate how to improve semantic matching of test reuse approaches, propose SemFinder a novel semantic matching algorithm that outperforms existing solutions, and identify several interesting research directions.

References

  1. Ahmed Abbasi, Hsinchun Chen, and Arab Salem. 2008. Sentiment analysis in multiple languages: Feature selection for opinion classification in web forums. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 26, 3 (2008), 1–34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adrian Chifor. 2021. Swiftnotes. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.moonpi.swiftnotes Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Domenico Amalfitano, Anna Rita Fasolino, Porfirio Tramontana, Salvatore De Carmine, and Atif M. Memon. 2012. Using GUI Ripping for Automated Testing of Android Applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’12). ACM, 258–261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Saswat Anand, Mayur Naik, Mary Jean Harrold, and Hongseok Yang. 2012. Automated Concolic Testing of Smartphone Apps. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE ’12). ACM, 59:1–59:11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Andrzej Grzyb. 2021. Shopping List. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pl.com.andrzejgrzyb.shoppinglist Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Anthony Restaino. 2021. Lightning Browser. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=acr.browser.lightning Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Apps By Vir. 2021. Tip Calc. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appsbyvir.tipcalculator Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebru Arisoy, Tara N Sainath, Brian Kingsbury, and Bhuvana Ramabhadran. 2012. Deep neural network language models. In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT 2012 Workshop: Will We Ever Really Replace the N-gram Model? On the Future of Language Modeling for HLT. 20–28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Marco Baroni, Georgiana Dinu, and Germán Kruszewski. 2014. Don’t count, predict! a systematic comparison of context-counting vs. context-predicting semantic vectors. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 238–247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Earl T. Barr, Mark Harman, Phil McMinn, Muzammil Shahbaz, and Shin Yoo. 2015. The Oracle Problem in Software Testing: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 41, 5 (2015), 507–525.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Giovanni Becce, Leonardo Mariani, Oliviero Riganelli, and Mauro Santoro. 2012. Extracting Widget Descriptions from GUIs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE ’12). Springer, 347–361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Farnaz Behrang and Alessandro Orso. [n.d.]. ATM implementation. https://sites.google.com/view/apptestmigratorGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Farnaz Behrang and Alessandro Orso. 2018. Poster: Automated Test Migration for Mobile Apps. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE Poster ’18). ACM, 384–385.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Farnaz Behrang and Alessandro Orso. 2018. Test Migration for Efficient Large-scale Assessment of Mobile App Coding Assignments. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’18). ACM, 164–175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Farnaz Behrang and Alessandro Orso. 2019. Test migration between mobile apps with similar functionality. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’19). 54–65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Farnaz Behrang and Alessandro Orso. 2020. AppTestMigrator: a tool for automated test migration for Android apps. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE DEMO ’20). ACM, 17–20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Benoit Letondor. 2021. EasyBudget. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.benoitletondor.easybudgetapp Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.04606.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St. John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2018. Universal Sentence Encoder. arxiv:1803.11175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jieshan Chen, Chunyang Chen, Zhenchang Xing, Xiwei Xu, Liming Zhut, Guoqiang Li, and Jinshui Wang. 2020. Unblind your apps: Predicting natural-language labels for mobile GUI components by deep learning. In 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 322–334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Shauvik Roy Choudhary, Alessandra Gorla, and Alessandro Orso. 2015. Automated Test Input Generation for Android: Are We There Yet? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’16). IEEE Computer Society, 429–440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Craigpark Limited. 2021. Email App for Any Mail. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=park.outlook.sign.in.client Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. MJ Crick and MD Hill. 1987. The role of sensitivity analysis in assessing uncertainty. In Uncertainty analysis for performance assessments of radioactive waste disposal systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Alan Dix. 2009. Human-computer interaction. In Encyclopedia of database systems. Springer, 1327–1331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhen Dong, Marcel Böhme, Lucia Cojocaru, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2020. Time-travel testing of Android apps. In ICSE ’20: 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June - 19 July, 2020 (ICSE’20). ACM, 481–492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. douzifly. 2021. Clear List. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/douzifly.list/ Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Markus Ermuth and Michael Pradel. 2016. Monkey see, monkey do: Effective generation of GUI tests with inferred macro events. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’16). 82–93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Z. Gao, Z. Chen, Y. Zou, and A. M. Memon. 2016. SITAR: GUI Test Script Repair. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 42, 2 (2016), 170–186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Gaukler Faun. 2021. FOSS Browser. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.baumann.browser/ Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Google. Accessed: 2017-08-12. Monkey Runner. http://developer.android.com/tools/help/monkey.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tianxiao Gu, Chengnian Sun, Xiaoxing Ma, Chun Cao, Chang Xu, Yuan Yao, Qirun Zhang, Jian Lu, and Zhendong Su. 2019. Practical GUI Testing of Android Applications via Model Abstraction and Refinement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’19). IEEE Computer Society, 269–280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. DM Hamby. 1995. A comparison of sensitivity analysis techniques. Health physics, 68, 2 (1995), 195–204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Gang Hu, Linjie Zhu, and Junfeng Yang. 2018. AppFlow: Using Machine Learning to Synthesize Robust, Reusable UI Tests. In Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference held jointly with the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE ’18). ACM, 269–282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Tensor Flow Hub. [n.d.]. Token based text embedding trained on English Google News 200B corpus. https://tfhub.dev/google/nnlm-en-dim128/2. Last access: 2020-09-30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. JPStudiosonline. 2021. Free Tip Calculator. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jpstudiosonline.tipcalculator Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. keith kildare. 2021. Shopping List. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.woefe.shoppinglist/ Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. keith kildare. 2021. Simply Do. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/kdk.android.simplydo/ Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Matt J. Kusner, Yu Sun, Nicholas I. Kolkin, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2015. From Word Embeddings to Document Distances. In Proceedings of the International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ’15). 957–966.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Kvannli. 2021. Daily Budget. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kvannli.simonkvannli.dailybudget Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Vladimir I. Levenshtein. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 707–710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Hongmin Li, Xukun Li, Doina Caragea, and Cornelia Caragea. 2018. Comparison of word embeddings and sentence encodings as generalized representations for crisis tweet classification tasks. Proceedings of ISCRAM Asia Pacific.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Xiao Li, Nana Chang, Yan Wang, Haohua Huang, Yu Pei, Linzhang Wang, and Xuandong Li. 2017. ATOM: Automatic maintenance of GUI test scripts for evolving mobile applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST ’17). 161–171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jun-Wei Lin, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand, and Sam Malek. [n.d.]. Craftdroid implementation. https://github.com/seal-hub/CraftDroidGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Jun-Wei Lin, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand, and Sam Malek. 2019. Test Transfer Across Mobile Apps Through Semantic Mapping. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’34). IEEE Computer Society, 42–53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Mario Linares-Vásquez, Martin White, Carlos Bernal-Cárdenas, Kevin Moran, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2015. Mining android app usages for generating actionable gui-based execution scenarios. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR ’15). IEEE Computer Society, 111–122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Tie-Yan Liu. 2011. Learning to rank for information retrieval.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Luan Kevin Ferreira. 2021. Expenses. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=luankevinferreira.expenses Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Aravind Machiry, Rohan Tahiliani, and Mayur Naik. 2013. Dynodroid: An input generation system for android apps. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE ’13). ACM, 224–234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Mail.Ru Group. 2021. Mail.ru. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.mail.mailapp Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ke Mao, Mark Harman, and Yue Jia. 2016. Sapienz: multi-objective automated testing for Android applications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’16). ACM, 94–105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Ke Mao, Mark Harman, and Yue Jia. 2017. Crowd intelligence enhances automated mobile testing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’17). IEEE Computer Society, 16–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Leonardo Mariani, Ali Mohebbi, Mauro Pezzè, and Valerio Terragni. 2021. Semantic Matching of GUI Events for Test Reuse: Are We There Yet? https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4725222 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Leonardo Mariani, Mauro Pezzè, and Daniele Zuddas. 2018. Augusto: Exploiting Popular Functionalities for the Generation of Semantic GUI Tests with Oracles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’18). 280–290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Leonardo Mariani, Mauro Pezzè, Valerio Terragni, and Daniele Zuddas. 2021. An Evolutionary Approach to Adapt Tests Across Mobile Apps. In International Conference on Automation of Software Test (AST ’21). 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/AST52587.2021.00016 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Atif Memon, Ishan Banerjee, and Adithya Nagarajan. 2003. What test oracle should I use for effective GUI testing? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’03). 164–173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Atif Memon, Adithya Nagarajan, and Qing Xie. 2005. Automating regression testing for evolving GUI software. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 17, 1 (2005), 27–64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Atif M Memon. 2008. Automatically repairing event sequence-based GUI test suites for regression testing. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 18, 2 (2008), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Atif M. Memon, Ishan Banerjee, and Adithya Nagarajan. 2003. GUI Ripping: Reverse Engineering of Graphical User Interfaces for Testing. In Proceedings of The Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE ’03). IEEE Computer Society, 260–269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and Their Compositionality. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS ’13). 3111–3119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. M. Mirzaaghaei, Fabrizio Pastore, and Mauro Pezzè. 2010. Automatically Repairing Test Cases for Evolving Method Declarations. In ICSM‘10: Proceedings of 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Mehdi Mirzaaghaei, Fabrizio Pastore, and Mauro Pezzè. 2012. Supporting Test Suite Evolution through Test Case Adaptation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST ’12). IEEE Computer Society, 231–240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Nariman Mirzaei, Hamid Bagheri, Riyadh Mahmood, and Sam Malek. 2015. SIG-Droid: Automated System Input Feneration for Android Applications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE ’15). IEEE Computer Society, 461–471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Kevin Moran, Mario Linares Vásquez, Carlos Bernal-Cárdenas, Christopher Vendome, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2016. Automatically Discovering, Reporting and Reproducing Android Application Crashes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST ’16). IEEE Computer Society, 33–44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Mozilla. 2021. Firefox Focus. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.focus Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. My.com B.V.. 2021. myMail. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.mail.mailapp Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. OpenIntents. 2021. OI Shopping list. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.openintents.shopping Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Egon S Pearson, Ralph B D ‘‘’AGOSTINO, and Kimiko O Bowman. 1977. Tests for departure from normality: Comparison of powers. Biometrika, 64, 2 (1977), 231–246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 1532–1543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. plafu. 2021. Writeily Pro. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/me.writeily Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Xue Qin, Hao Zhong, and Xiaoyin Wang. 2019. TestMig: Migrating GUI Test Cases from iOS to Android. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’19). ACM, 284–295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. rainbowshops. 2021. Rainbow. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rainbowshops Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Dieter Rasch and Volker Guiard. 2004. The robustness of parametric statistical methods. Psychology Science, 46 (2004), 175–208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Andreas Rau, Jenny Hotzkow, and Andreas Zeller. 2018. Efficient GUI test generation by learning from tests of other apps. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE Poster ’18). ACM, 370–371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Andreas Rau, Jenny Hotzkow, and Andreas Zeller. 2018. Transferring tests across web applications. In International Conference on Web Engineering. Springer, 50–64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. roxrook. 2021. Pocket Note. https://github.com/roxrook/pocket-note-android Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Ruben Roy. 2021. Minimal. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.rubenroy.minimaltodo/ Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Jonathan Schler, Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon, and James W Pennebaker. 2006. Effects of age and gender on blogging.. In AAAI spring symposium: Computational approaches to analyzing weblogs. 6, 199–205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. H Andrew Schwartz, Johannes C Eichstaedt, Margaret L Kern, Lukasz Dziurzynski, Stephanie M Ramones, Megha Agrawal, Achal Shah, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, and Martin EP Seligman. 2013. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PloS one, 8, 9 (2013), e73791.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. SECUSO Research Group. 2021. Shopping List (Privacy Friendly). https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=privacyfriendlyshoppinglist.secuso.org.privacyfriendlyshoppinglist Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. SECUSO Research Group. 2021. Todo List. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/douzifly.list/ Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Stoutner. 2021. Privacy Browser. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stoutner.privacybrowser.standard Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. TLe Apps. 2021. Simple Tip Calculator. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tleapps.simpletipcalculator Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Joseph Turian, Lev Ratinov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Word representations: a simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. 384–394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Vansuita. 2021. Shopping List. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=br.com.activity Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Yanshan Wang, Sijia Liu, Naveed Afzal, Majid Rastegar-Mojarad, Liwei Wang, Feichen Shen, Paul Kingsbury, and Hongfang Liu. 2018. A comparison of word embeddings for the biomedical natural language processing. Journal of biomedical informatics, 87 (2018), 12–20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Xusheng Xiao, Xiaoyin Wang, Zhihao Cao, Hanlin Wang, and Peng Gao. 2019. Iconintent: automatic identification of sensitive ui widgets based on icon classification for android apps. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 257–268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. xorum. 2021. Open Money Tracker. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blogspot.e_kanivets.moneytracker Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Yelp, Inc. 2021. Yelp. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yelp.android Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. ZaidiSoft. 2021. Tip Calculator Plus. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zaidisoft.teninone Last access: Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Sai Zhang, Hao Lü, and Michael D Ernst. 2013. Automatically repairing broken workflows for evolving GUI applications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA ’13). 45–55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Yixue Zhao, Justin Chen, Adriana Sejfia, Marcelo Schmitt Laser, Jie Zhang, Federica Sarro, Mark Harman, and Nenad Medvidovic. 2020. FrUITeR: a framework for evaluating UI test reuse. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 20). 1190–1201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Yu Zhao, Tingting Yu, Ting Su, Yang Liu, Wei Zheng, Jingzhi Zhang, and William G. J. Halfond. 2019. ReCDroid: Automatically Reproducing Android Application Crashes from Bug Reports. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’19). IEEE Computer Society, 128–139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Semantic matching of GUI events for test reuse: are we there yet?

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ISSTA 2021: Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis
          July 2021
          685 pages
          ISBN:9781450384599
          DOI:10.1145/3460319

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 July 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate58of213submissions,27%

          Upcoming Conference

          ISSTA '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader