A Comparison and the Desireable Features of Version Control Tools

Čandrlić, Sanja; Pavlić, Mile; Poščić, Patrizia

doi:10.1109/iti.2007.4283756

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, in , it is suggested to combine the tools to get the optimal result. In and , the desirable features of new version tools are underlined.…”

Section: Approach and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We study different articles in order to cover a large spectrum of tools. Mantere et al compare static code analysis tools; compare reverse engineering tools; compare public end‐to‐end bandwidth estimation tools, clone detection tools, collaborative business process tools, bug finding tools, version control tools, tools to detect fake websites. In , automatic generation tools are compared with a manual process of code production.…”

Section: Approach and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we are concerned in choosing a mutation analysis tool. We applied a classic methodology (used for instance in ) that consists in determining comparison criteria and to evaluate tools on these criteria. However, because of their number, criteria do not necessarily ease the choice: it just explicits the comparison elements.…”

Section: Conclusion and Lessons Learntmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Selecting a software engineering tool: lessons learnt from mutation analysis

Delahaye

Bousquet

2015

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceSoftware developers employ many tools in every step of the development. As automation progresses, tools take a more and more important place. A common and difficult problem is choosing a tool among every tool for a given task.As a particular instance of this problem, this paper considers mutation analysis tools. Mutation analysis is a way to evaluate the quality of a test suite. The quality is measured as the ability of the test suite to detect faults injected into the program under tests. A fault is detected if at least one test case gives different results on the original program and the fault-injected one. Mutation tools aim at automating and speeding both the generation of fault-injected variants, called mutants, and the execution of the test suite on those mutants.This paper proposes a methodology to compare tools and applies it for comparing mutation tools. This methodology proposes to dress a list of comparison criteria as well as a list of usage profiles. Mutation tools for Java are compared on paper and by experiments. The work is then extended to other languages to assert the pertinence of the comparison criteria and the usage profiles. Finally, lessons are drawn from our selection process

show abstract

“…In particular, in , it is suggested to combine the tools to get the optimal result. In and , the desirable features of new version tools are underlined.…”

Section: Approach and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%