Oops, My Tests Broke the Build: An Explorative Analysis of Travis CI with GitHub
Authors:
- Moritz BellerMBMoritz Beller
- Georgios GousiosGGGeorgios Gousios
- Andy ZaidmanAZAndy Zaidman
Top Cited Papers
- 1 May 2017
- conference paper
- Published by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
- p. 356-367
Abstract
Continuous Integration (CI) has become a best practice of modern software development. Yet, at present, we have a shortfall of insight into the testing practices that are common in CI-based software development. In particular, we seek quantifiable evidence on how central testing is to the CI process, how strongly the project language influences testing, whether different integration environments are valuable and if testing on the CI can serve as a surrogate to local testing in the IDE. In an analysis of 2,640,825 Java and Ruby builds on Travis CI, we find that testing is the single most important reason why builds fail. Moreover, the programming language has a strong influence on both the number of executed tests, their run time, and proneness to fail. The use of multiple integration environments leads to 10% more failures being caught at build time. However, testing on Travis CI does not seem an adequate surrogate for running tests locally in the IDE. To further research on Travis CI with GitHub, we introduce TravisTorrent.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- SQA-Mashup: A mashup framework for continuous integrationInformation and Software Technology, 2015
- How (Much) Do Developers Test?2015
- Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Integrator's Perspective2015
- Modeling continuous integration practice differences in industry software developmentJournal of Systems and Software, 2014
- A systematic review of effect size in software engineering experimentsInformation and Software Technology, 2007
- Scaling Continuous Integration2004
- Long Build Trouble Shooting GuideLecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004
- An empirical comparison of seven programming languagesComputer, 2000
- A Critique and Improvement of the "CL" Common Language Effect Size Statistics of McGraw and WongJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 2000
- An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)Biometrika, 1965