Fixing Regression Test Suite Bloat with AI
Test suite bloat poses a major challenge for test automation
DevOps and continuous deployment have changed the game in software development by boosting collaboration, automation, and constant feedback.
These practices are key for keeping up with today’s fast-moving market, helping teams deliver top-notch software quickly and efficiently.
With these changes, software testing has had to adapt, focusing more on test automation and continuous testing to match the faster pace of development.
But as apps get more complex, the number of automated tests often grows rapidly. This can lead to long test execution times, sometimes stretching to hours or days. Which clashes with the quick feedback loops that modern development aims for.
So, testing teams face a tough challenge: deciding which tests to run and prioritize when time and resources are limited. The growing volume of tests can make it impractical to run every single one in every regression cycle.
Tackling bloat with test suite minimization
Test suite minimization is a technique for optimizing test automation by reducing the number of test cases in a test suite while preserving its effectiveness. This involves identifying and removing redundant, obsolete, or less critical test cases.
The primary goals of test suite minimization are:
- Eliminating redundancy: Identifying and removing test cases that offer no added value in terms of coverage or defect detection.
- Boosting efficiency: Reducing the test suite’s size to make the testing process quicker and easier to manage.
- Preserving effectiveness: Ensuring the reduced test suite still offers comprehensive coverage and effective defect detection.
This is a tough real-world problem. A quick Google search for “test suite minimization” brings up loads of results, including many blog posts, articles and a ton of academic papers.
Drawing from the available information, here are some test suite minimization techniques to get started:
Requirement-Based Techniques:
- Prioritization: Giving test cases a priority level based on their importance. You keep the high-priority ones and cut back on or remove the less important ones.
- Coverage analysis: Making sure that the reduced test suite still covers all the key requirements. You can get rid of test cases that just duplicate coverage.
Coverage-Based Techniques:
- Code coverage: Checking which parts of the code each test case covers. If multiple test cases cover the same parts, you can combine or remove some of them.
- Branch coverage: Making sure you have test cases that test different branches in the code. This helps spot potential issues more effectively.
- Path coverage: Trying to cover all possible execution paths through the code. While it’s ideal for thorough testing, it can be pretty resource-intensive for complex systems.
Other Techniques:
- Clustering: Grouping similar test cases and choosing a few key ones from each group to represent them.
- Test case prioritization: Ranking test cases based on factors like execution time and ability to find defects, then keeping the most valuable ones.
- Model-based testing: For systems with formal models, you can generate test cases from the model and then streamline the test suite based on how well it covers the model. I can’t talk about Model-based testing without mentioning our Tool Yest: Yest modernizes Model-Based Testing (MBT) and test generation. It offers a whole range of functions to enhance the creative work of test design and speed up the painstaking task of writing test cases (“implementation” in ISTQB language). Whether you’re aiming for manual or automated test execution.
- Greedy algorithms: These algorithms iteratively select test cases that provide the most coverage until all required coverage criteria are met.
- Mutation testing: Making small changes to the code (mutants) and prioritizing test cases that can catch these changes, as they’re considered more useful.
Keep in mind that this isn’t an exhaustive list. There are many more techniques out there, such as Genetic Algorithms, Fuzzy Logic, and Particle Swarm Optimization, among others.
The main challenge is that many of these approaches are primarily academic concepts and experimental ideas. There are few commercial or open-source tools available for practical use, making real-world implementation difficult.
This means teams are often left relying on traditional human-based methods for prioritizing and optimizing test suites.
These manual approaches are typically time-consuming and prone to errors. They are heavily dependent on the experience and potential biases of the individual performing the task.
AI innovations pave the way for new possibilities
With advancements in Generative AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning, new techniques have emerged to tackle the test suite minimization problem.
These methods utilize advanced algorithms and data-driven insights to enhance both the efficiency and effectiveness of test suite minimization.
These new AI-powered algorithms are more sophisticated than traditional approaches. For example, they can classify test cases into high, medium, and low priority based on factors like complexity, defect history, and execution time.
Additionally, these algorithms can predict and rank test cases based on their likelihood of detecting defects or their chances of passing or failing, which aids in identifying and removing redundant tests.
This introduces an additional level of intelligence, facilitating more informed decisions about which test cases to keep or eliminate.
By uncovering patterns and correlations within the data, these algorithms assist in pinpointing redundant tests that have little impact on detecting new defects as well as gaps in the test coverage.
Test suite: Optimization with Gravity
Gravity is a platform that aggregates raw data produced by different tools throughout the development and testing lifecycle, as well as live user behavior data from production usage collected through Real User Monitoring (RUM) traces, with the goal of generating “Quality Intelligence” models.
“Quality Intelligence” is produced by processing the ingested data through Machine Learning algorithms and Generative AI.
This involves translating raw data into meaningful insights using techniques such as pattern recognition, trend and correlation analysis, anomaly and outlier detection, and more.
Gravity’s ability to ingest data from both testing and production environments allows it to perform a thorough analysis of test cases within the test suites, whether they are manual or automated.
It ranks these cases as high, medium, or low priority based on factors like complexity, defect discovery history, execution time, among other variables.
This analysis helps testing teams identify gaps in coverage, determine if features are over-tested or under-tested, and recognize redundant testing efforts in less critical areas.
With these data-driven insights, teams can more effectively select and prioritize tests, ensuring focused coverage in crucial areas. This enhances the efficiency of regression testing without relying on assumptions or guesswork.
Conclusion
In a fast-paced Agile environment, streamlining test suites is not just a luxury but a necessity
As software development accelerates, managing the increasing complexity of automated test suites is crucial.
Test suite minimization techniques are designed to streamline testing by cutting out unnecessary tests and improving coverage. However, traditional methods often fall short because they rely on manual effort and subjective judgment.
AI and Machine Learning provide a promising alternative, allowing for smarter analysis, optimization, and prioritization of test suites.
By adopting these AI-driven approaches, teams can better handle the complexities of today’s software landscape and maintain high-quality standards amidst rapid changes.
Platforms like Gravity leverage the advancements in the Artificial Intelligence field to provide valuable insights to testing teams, boosting the efficiency and effectiveness of testing processes by streamlining test suites based on data rather than guesswork and subjective opinions.