No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Automated test case generation tools have been successfully proposed to reduce the amount of human and infrastructure resources required to write and run test cases. However, recent studies demonstrate that the readability of generated tests is very limited due to (i) uninformative identifiers and (ii) lack of proper documentation. Prior studies proposed techniques to improve test readability by either generating natural language summaries or meaningful methods names. While these approaches are shown to improve test readability, they are also affected by two limitations: (1) generated summaries are often perceived as too verbose and redundant by developers, and (2) readable tests require both proper method names but also meaningful identifiers (within-method readability).In this work, we combine template based methods and Deep Learning (DL) approaches to automatically generate test case scenarios (elicited from natural language patterns of test case statements) as well as to train DL models on path-based representations of source code to generate meaningful identifier names. Our approach, called DeepTC-Enhancer, recommends documentation and identifier names with the ultimate goal of enhancing readability of automatically generated test cases.An empirical evaluation with 36 external and internal developers shows that (1) DeepTC-Enhancer outperforms significantly the baseline approach for generating summaries and performs equally with the baseline approach for test case renaming, (2) the transformation proposed by DeepTC-Enhancer results in a significant increase in readability of automatically generated test cases, and (3) there is a significant difference in the feature preferences between external and internal developers.

Identifying source code that has poor readability allows developers to focus maintenance efforts on problematic code. Therefore, the effort to develop models that can quantify the readability of a piece of source code has been an area of interest for software engineering researchers for several years. However, recent research questions the usefulness of these readability models in practice. When applying these models to readability improvements that are made in practice, i.e., commits, they are unable to capture these incremental improvements, despite a clear perceived improvement by the developers. This results in a discrepancy between the models we have built to measure readability, and the actual perception of readability in practice. In this work, we propose a model that is able to detect incremental readability improvements made by developers in practice with an average precision of 79.2% and an average recall of 67% on an unseen test set. We then investigate the metrics that our model associates with developer perceived readability improvements as well as non-readability changes. Finally, we compare our model to existing state-of-the-art readability models, which our model outperforms by at least 23% in terms of precision and 42% in terms of recall. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Maintaining software; • Computing methodologies → Machine learning.