https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1502193/2020-02-12T17:21:14Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/descriptiveMetadatahttps://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1502193/#modsComparing white-box and black-box test prioritizationtextinfo:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceProceedingsHenardCautPapadakisMautHarmanMautJiaYautTraonYLautURN:ISSN:0270-5257Although white-box regression test prioritization has been well-studied, the more recently introduced black-box prioritization approaches have neither been compared against each other nor against more well-established white-box techniques. We present a comprehensive experimental comparison of several test prioritization techniques, including wellestablished white-box strategies and more recently introduced black-box approaches. We found that Combinatorial Interaction Testing and diversity-based techniques (Input Model Diversity and Input Test Set Diameter) perform best among the black-box approaches. Perhaps surprisingly, we found little difference between black-box and white-box performance (at most 4% fault detection rate difference). We also found the overlap between black-and white-box faults to be high: the first 10% of the prioritized test suites already agree on at least 60% of the faults found. These are positive findings for practicing regression testers who may not have source code available, thereby making white-box techniques inapplicable. We also found evidence that both black-box and white-box prioritization remain robust over multiple system releases.2016-05Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)New Yorkeng1502193URN:ISSN:0270-5257Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering38523534info:eu-repo/semantics/objectFileinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttps://discovery.ucl.ac.uk1502193/1/2020-02-12T17:21:14Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/humanStartPage