scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)

Testing Research Software

Abstract

This poster describes the work presented in a published paper [1], which reports the results of a survey of research software developers. The focus of the study was to understand how research software developers design test cases, handle output challenges, use metrics, execute tests, and select tools. Specifically, the study explores the following research questions; RQ1: What are the characteristics of the research software testing process? RQ2: What challenges do developers face throughout the testing process of research software? RQ3: How do research software developers design test inputs? RQ4: What specific challenges do research software developers face when determining the expected output of test cases? RQ5: What metrics do research software developers use to measure software quality and test quality of tests? RQ6: How do research software developers execute their tests? RQ7: What testing tools do research software developers use and what are their limitations? RQ8: What features should a testing tool specifically developed for research software contain? RQ9: Are demographic characteristics of research software projects related to the testing process? The poster will contain graphs reporting the detailed results related to these questions. Our overall findings show that research software testing varies widely. The primary challenges faced by research developers include test case design, evaluating test quality, and evaluating the correctness of test outputs. Our findings highlight the need to allocate more resources to software testing and provide more education and training to research software developers on software testing. References Eisty, N.U., Kanewala, U. & Carver, J.C. Testing research software: an in-depth survey of practices, methods, and tools. Empir Software Eng 30, 81 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-025-10620-6

Read accessible full text

Testing Research Software

Author: Eisty, Nasir; Carver, Jeffrey; Kanewala, Upulee
Publisher: Zenodo
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17258788
Source: https://zenodo.org/records/17258788/files/TestingPoster.pdf
Tes ing Resea ch So wa e
Nasi Eis y, Uni e si y o Tennessee, Knox ille, TN
Je ey Ca e , Uni e si y o Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
Upulee Kanewala, Uni e si y o No h Flo ida, Jackson ille, FL
Con ex
Re e ence
Conclusion
Recommenda ions
Objec i es
Key Resul s
❖Challenges:
➢Tes case design
➢E alua ing es quali y
➢Co ec ness o ou pu s
❖App oaches:
➢62% manual inpu design
➢Ou pu s o en lack o acle
➢Non-de e minism
complica es alida ion
❖Me ics:
➢S a emen co e age mos
used
➢Many don’ ack quali y
me ics
❖Execu ion:
➢Mos ly on push o end o
cycle
➢Few use p io i iza ion
❖Tools:
➢Gi Hub Ac ions, Py es ,
Jenkins, Codeco
➢No s anda d se
❖Explo e es ing p ac ices o
esea ch so wa e
❖Unde s and challenges: es
design, ou pu s, me ics,
execu ion, ools
❖In es iga e demog aphic
in luences (domain, eam
size, oles)
❖Resea ch so wa e is c i ical
o science and inno a ion
❖Ensu ing co ec ness is
essen ial bu challenging
❖Indus ial es ing ools a e
o en inadequa e
❖Resea ch so wa e es ing is
less sys ema ic and au oma ed
han indus y.
❖O acle p oblem and es case
design a e bigges hu dles.
❖Mo e esou ces, specialized
ools, and educa ion needed.
❖Funde s/manage s: alloca e
mo e es ing esou ces
❖De elope s: adop
documen a ion + sys ema ic
es ing
❖Tool builde s: c ea e
domain-awa e and easy o use
ools
❖Educa o s: in eg a e es ing
in o esea ch cu icula
Me hod
❖Su ey o 131 esea ch
so wa e de elope s
❖Topics: es inpu design,
expec ed ou pu s, me ics,
ools, limi a ions
❖Rec ui men ia US-RSE,
UK-RSE, IDEAS-ECP, BSSW
mailing lis s
Eis y, N.U., Kanewala, U. & Ca e , J.C. Tes ing
esea ch so wa e: an in-dep h su ey o p ac ices,
me hods, and ools. Empi So wa e Eng 30, 81
(2025). h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10664-025-10620-6
Demog aphics
Cha ac e is ics o he Tes ing P ocess
RSE? Deg ee ype? Domain
Sou ce o es ing
knowledge #FTEs % ime on es ing
Ranking o Tes ing Challenges
In luence o Demog aphics (Sys ema ic s FTEs)
Scan o ead he pape