GUI testing of Android applications: Investigating the impact of the number of testers on different exploratory testing strategies

Abstract

Graphical user interface (GUI) testing plays a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and functionality of mobile apps. In this context, exploratory testing (ET), a distinctive methodology in which individual testers pursue a creative, and experience‐based approach to test design, is often used as an alternative or in addition to traditional scripted testing. Managing the exploratory testing process is a challenging task that can easily result either in wasteful spending or in inadequate software quality, due to the relative unpredictability of exploratory testing activities, which depend on the skills and abilities of individual testers. A number of works have investigated the diversity of testers' performance when using ET strategies, often in a crowdtesting setting. These works, however, investigated ET effectiveness in detecting bugs, and not in scenarios in which the goal is to generate a re‐executable test suite, as well. Moreover, less work has been conducted on evaluating the impact of adopting different exploratory testing strategies. As a first step toward filling this gap in the literature, in this work, we conduct an empirical evaluation involving four open‐source Android apps and 20 masters students that we believe can be representative of practitioners partaking in exploratory testing activities. The students were asked to generate test suites for the apps using a capture and replay tool and different exploratory testing strategies. We then compare the effectiveness, in terms of aggregate code coverage that different‐sized groups of students using different exploratory testing strategies may achieve. Results provide deeper insights into code coverage dynamics to project managers interested in using exploratory approaches to test simple Android apps, on which they can make more informed decisions.

An Effective GDP-LSTM and SDQL-Based Finite State Testing of GUI

“…In traditional models, manual testing of GUI is carried out, thus resulting in time consumption and leading to inconsistent results [5]. Therefore, automatic GT tools have evolved to confirm the system's dependability [6].…”