On the Emergence of Testing Strategies: A Socio-technical Grounded Theory

Mark Swillus; Rashina Hoda; Andy Zaidman

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.07208

On the Emergence of Testing Strategies: A Socio-technical Grounded Theory

Mark Swillus·Rashina Hoda·Andy Zaidman

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Software testing is crucial for ensuring software quality, yet developers' engagement with it varies widely. Identifying the technical, organizational and social factors that lead to differences in engagement is required to remove barriers and utilize enablers for testing. While much research emphasizes the usefulness of software testing approaches and technical solutions, less is known about why developers do (not) test. This study investigates the first-hand experience of developers with software testing. The study illuminates how developers' opinions about testing and their testing behavior changes. Through analysis of personal evolutions of practice, we explore when and why testing is used. Employing socio-technical grounded theory (STGT), we construct a theory by systematically analyzing data from 19 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with software developers. Allowing interviewees to reflect on how and why they approach software testing, we explore perspectives that are rooted in their contextual experiences. We develop eleven categories of circumstances that act as conditions for the application and adaptation of testing practices and introduce three concepts that we then use to present a theory of emerging testing strategies (ETS) that explains why developers do (not) use testing practices. This study reveals a new perspective on the connection between testing artifacts and collective reflection of practitioners, and it embraces. It has direct implications for practice %and contributes to the groundwork of socio-technical research which embraces testing as an experience in which human- and social aspects are entangled with organizational and technical circumstances.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Mark Swillus, Rashina Hoda, Andy Zaidman. 2026-03-23. On the Emergence of Testing Strategies: A Socio-technical Grounded Theory. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07208

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗