Mobile Application Compatibility Test System Design for Android Fragmentation

Ham, Hyung Kil; Park, Young Bom

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27207-3_33

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They considered this as evidence for Android fragmentation. Ham et al came up with their own compatibility test to prevent Android fragmentation problems [18]. They focus on doing code analysis and API pre-testing to identify possible issues.…”

Section: Work Related To Android Fragmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps

Khalid

Nagappan

Shihab

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Star ratings that are given by the users of mobile apps directly impact the revenue of its developers. At the same time, for popular platforms like Android, these apps must run on hundreds of devices increasing the chance for device-specific problems. Devicespecific problems could impact the rating assigned to an app, given the varying capabilities of devices (e.g., hardware and software). To fix device-specific problems developers must test their apps on a large number of Android devices, which is costly and inefficient.Therefore, to help developers pick which devices to test their apps on, we propose using the devices that are mentioned in user reviews. We mine the user reviews of 99 free game apps and find that, apps receive user reviews from a large number of devices: between 38 to 132 unique devices. However, most of the reviews (80%) originate from a small subset of devices (on average, 33%). Furthermore, we find that developers of new game apps with no reviews can use the review data of similar game apps to select the devices that they should focus on first. Finally, among the set of devices that generate the most reviews for an app, we find that some devices tend to generate worse ratings than others. Our findings indicate that focusing on the devices with the most reviews (in particular the ones with negative ratings), developers can effectively prioritize their limited Quality Assurance (QA) efforts, since these devices have the greatest impact on ratings.

show abstract

Section: Work Related To Android Fragmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Motivation: As mentioned earlier, Android fragmentation is a major concern of developers who are seeking to develop high quality Android apps [6,8,18]. There may be hundreds of devices that developers may need to test their apps on.…”

Section: Rq1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing the devices to test your app on: a case study of Android game apps

Khalid

Nagappan

Shihab

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a wide variety of mobile devices and versions of operating systems, known as fragmentation [10], [12], [13], [14]. Fragmentation represents a testing difficulty since mobile applications may behave differently regarding usability and performance, depending on the device they are run on.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Automated Testing Framework: A Case Study

Méndez-Porras¹,

Alfaro-Velásco²,

Martinez³

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing mobile applications without defects or in a minimum number is an important challenge for programmers and quality assurance teams. Automated software test can be the key to improve the traditional manual testing, often time consuming and repetitive. Mobile applications support user-interaction characteristics, whichareindependentfromtheapplicationlogic.Theyincludecontentpresentationornavigationfeatures,such as scroll or zoom into screens, and a rotating device. In this paper, an automated testing framework is proposed and evaluated. This framework integrates user- interaction features, historical bug information, and an interest points detector and descriptor to identify new bugs. It has shown that it works well detecting bugs associated with user-interactions.

show abstract

“…Recently, several testing approaches like Automated testing [28], Cloud testing services [15,19,20,30] and industrial crowdtesting platforms or companies [5,7,11,13,19,20,26,30] have been built to address the compatibility issue. However, the issue remains [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%