What Do Contribution Guidelines Say About Software Testing?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02966v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 01:05:15 GMT
• Title: What Do Contribution Guidelines Say About Software Testing?
• Abstract summary: We analyze the guidelines of 200 Python and JavaScript open-source software projects.<n>We find that 78% of the projects include some form of test documentation for contributors.<n>Test documentation commonly explains how to run tests, but less often provides guidance on how to write tests.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Software testing plays a crucial role in the contribution process of open-source projects. For example, contributions introducing new features are expected to include tests, and contributions with tests are more likely to be accepted. Although most real-world projects require contributors to write tests, the specific testing practices communicated to contributors remain unclear. In this paper, we present an empirical study to understand better how software testing is approached in contribution guidelines. We analyze the guidelines of 200 Python and JavaScript open-source software projects. We find that 78\% of the projects include some form of test documentation for contributors. Test documentation is located in multiple sources, including \texttt{CONTRIBUTING} files (58\%), external documentation (24\%), and \texttt{README} files (8\%). Furthermore, test documentation commonly explains how to run tests (83.5\%), but less often provides guidance on how to write tests (37\%). It frequently covers unit tests (71\%), but rarely addresses integration (20.5\%) and end-to-end tests (15.5\%). Other key testing aspects are also less frequently discussed: test coverage (25.5\%) and mocking (9.5\%). We conclude by discussing implications and future research.

Related papers

• ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents [68.42713285082912]
  Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue.<n>We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it.<n>The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:53:37Z)
• TestMiner: Software Testing Analysis for GitHub Repositories [2.1021180782525097]
  TestMiner is a tool for exploring software testing in GitHub repositories.<n>TestMiner provides an overview of a project's testing practices, including test statistics, test location, test metrics across releases, and dependencies related to testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T23:52:13Z)
• The Impact of Documentation on Test Engagement in Pull Requests in OSS [2.0239648986804757]
  We investigate the relationship between documentation on testing and contributor testing behavior.<n>Using data from 160 OSS repositories, we analyze the relationship between documentation comprehensiveness and Test Engagement Ratio.<n>Our findings suggest that documentation on testing may be associated with increased testing engagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T22:16:45Z)
• Intention-Driven Generation of Project-Specific Test Cases [45.2380093475221]
  We propose IntentionTest, which generates project-specific tests given the description of validation intention.<n>We extensively evaluate IntentionTest against state-of-the-art baselines (DA, ChatTester, and EvoSuite) on 4,146 test cases from 13 open-source projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T08:35:04Z)
• Studying the Impact of Early Test Termination Due to Assertion Failure on Code Coverage and Spectrum-based Fault Localization [48.22524837906857]
  This study is the first empirical study on early test termination due to assertion failure.<n>We investigated 207 versions of 6 open-source projects.<n>Our findings indicate that early test termination harms both code coverage and the effectiveness of spectrum-based fault localization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-06T17:14:09Z)
• CLOVER: A Test Case Generation Benchmark with Coverage, Long-Context, and Verification [71.34070740261072]
  This paper presents a benchmark, CLOVER, to evaluate models' capabilities in generating and completing test cases.<n>The benchmark is containerized for code execution across tasks, and we will release the code, data, and construction methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T21:42:56Z)
• ProjectTest: A Project-level LLM Unit Test Generation Benchmark and Impact of Error Fixing Mechanisms [48.43237545197775]
  Unit test generation has become a promising and important use case of LLMs.<n>ProjectTest is a project-level benchmark for unit test generation covering Python, Java, and JavaScript.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:24:30Z)
• Observation-based unit test generation at Meta [52.4716552057909]
  TestGen automatically generates unit tests, carved from serialized observations of complex objects, observed during app execution. TestGen has landed 518 tests into production, which have been executed 9,617,349 times in continuous integration, finding 5,702 faults. Our evaluation reveals that, when carving its observations from 4,361 reliable end-to-end tests, TestGen was able to generate tests for at least 86% of the classes covered by end-to-end tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T00:34:39Z)
• TestSpark: IntelliJ IDEA's Ultimate Test Generation Companion [15.13443954421825]
  This paper introduces TestSpark, a plugin for IntelliJ IDEA that enables users to generate unit tests with only a few clicks. TestSpark also allows users to easily modify and run each generated test and integrate them into the project workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T13:53:57Z)
• The Effects of Computational Resources on Flaky Tests [9.694460778355925]
  Flaky tests are tests that nondeterministically pass and fail in unchanged code. Resource-Affected Flaky Tests indicate that a substantial proportion of flaky-test failures can be avoided by adjusting the resources available when running tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T17:42:58Z)
• Learning Deep Semantics for Test Completion [46.842174440120196]
  We formalize the novel task of test completion to automatically complete the next statement in a test method based on the context of prior statements and the code under test. We develop TeCo -- a deep learning model using code semantics for test completion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-20T18:53:56Z)
• An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation [3.9762912548964864]
  This paper presents a large-scale empirical evaluation on the effectiveness of Large Language Models for automated unit test generation. We implement our approach in TestPilot, a test generation tool for JavaScript that automatically generates unit tests for all API functions in an npm package. We find that 92.8% of TestPilot's generated tests have no more than 50% similarity with existing tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T17:13:41Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.