Accelerating Continuous Integration with Parallel Batch Testing
August 25, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Emad Fallahzadeh, Amir Hossein Bavand, Peter C. Rigby
arXiv ID
2308.13129
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
8
Venue
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Continuous integration at scale is costly but essential to software development. Various test optimization techniques including test selection and prioritization aim to reduce the cost. Test batching is an effective alternative, but overlooked technique. This study evaluates parallelization's effect by adjusting machine count for test batching and introduces two novel approaches. We establish TestAll as a baseline to study the impact of parallelism and machine count on feedback time. We re-evaluate ConstantBatching and introduce DynamicBatching, which adapts batch size based on the remaining changes in the queue. We also propose TestCaseBatching, enabling new builds to join a batch before full test execution, thus speeding up continuous integration. Our evaluations utilize Ericsson's results and 276 million test outcomes from open-source Chrome, assessing feedback time, execution reduction, and providing access to Chrome project scripts and data. The results reveal a non-linear impact of test parallelization on feedback time, as each test delay compounds across the entire test queue. ConstantBatching, with a batch size of 4, utilizes up to 72% fewer machines to maintain the actual average feedback time and provides a constant execution reduction of up to 75%. Similarly, DynamicBatching maintains the actual average feedback time with up to 91% fewer machines and exhibits variable execution reduction of up to 99%. TestCaseBatching holds the line of the actual average feedback time with up to 81% fewer machines and demonstrates variable execution reduction of up to 67%. We recommend practitioners use DynamicBatching and TestCaseBatching to reduce the required testing machines efficiently. Analyzing historical data to find the threshold where adding more machines has minimal impact on feedback time is also crucial for resource-effective testing.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Software Engineering
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flow
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Cars
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Devign: Effective Vulnerability Identification by Learning Comprehensive Program Semantics via Graph Neural Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted