arXiv subjects

Carolin Brandt

Publications and source records attributed to Carolin Brandt.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond the YAML File: Understanding Real-World GitHub Actions Workflow Adoption

Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) have become fundamental to modern software development, with GitHub Actions (GHA) emerging as a dominant automation platform. In this study, we analyze real-world execution records of GHA, examining how developers react to workflow failures, how these workflows are utilized by projects, and how these aspects relate to project characteristics. We quantitatively analyze 258,300 workflow run records from 952 repositories and perform an in-depth qualitative analysis of 21 selected, diverse GitHub repositories to understand how maintainers and contributors interact with workflow results. We identify three distinct failure response patterns, observe that higher usage intensity of GHA workflows correlates with lower failure rates, and uncover a configuration-usage gap where the presence of configuration files masks disabled or unused workflows. Moreover, our qualitative analysis of relationships between project characteristics and utilization patterns yields five hypotheses for future validation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Not One to Rule Them All: Mining Meaningful Code Review Orders From GitHub

Developers use tools such as GitHub pull requests to review code, discuss proposed changes, and request modifications. While changed files are commonly presented in alphabetical order, this does not necessarily coincide with the reviewer's preferred navigation sequence. This study investigates the different navigation orders developers follow while commenting on changes submitted in pull requests. We mined code review comments from 23,241 pull requests in 100 popular Java and Python repositories on GitHub to analyze the order in which the reviewers commented on the submitted changes. Our analysis shows that for 44.6% of pull requests, the reviewers comment in a non-alphabetical order. Among these pull requests, we identified traces of alternative meaningful orders: 20.6% (2,134) followed a largest-diff-first order, 17.6% (1,827) were commented in the order of the files' similarity to the pull request's title and description, and 29% (1,188) of pull requests containing changes to both production and test files adhered to a test-first order. We also observed that the proportion of reviewed files to total submitted files was significantly higher in non-alphabetically ordered reviews, which also received slightly fewer approvals from reviewers, on average. Our findings highlight the need for additional support during code reviews, particularly for larger pull requests, where reviewers are more likely to adopt complex strategies rather than following a single predefined order.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

An instrument to measure factors that constitute the socio-technical context of testing experience

We consider testing a cooperative and social practice that is shaped by the tools developers use, the tests they write, and their mindsets and human needs. This work is one part of a project that explores the human- and socio-technical context of testing through the lens of those interwoven elements: test suite and tools as technical infrastructure and collaborative factors and motivation as mindset. Drawing on empirical observations of previous work, this survey examines how these factors relate to each other. We want to understand which combination of factors can help developers strive and make the most of their ambitions to leverage the potential that software testing practices have. In this report, we construct a survey instrument to measure the factors that constitute the socio-technical context of testing experience. In addition, we state our hypotheses about how these factors impact testing experience and explain the considerations and process that led to the construction of the survey questions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

Developer-Centric Test Amplification The Interplay Between Automatic Generation and Human Exploration

Automatically generating test cases for software has been an active research topic for many years. While current tools can generate powerful regression or crash-reproducing test cases, these are often kept separately from the maintained test suite. In this paper, we leverage the developer's familiarity with test cases amplified from existing, manually written developer tests. Starting from issues reported by developers in previous studies, we investigate what aspects are important to design a developer-centric test amplification approach, that provides test cases that are taken over by developers into their test suite. We conduct 16 semi-structured interviews with software developers supported by our prototypical designs of a developer-centric test amplification approach and a corresponding test exploration tool. We extend the test amplification tool DSpot, generating test cases that are easier to understand. Our IntelliJ plugin TestCube empowers developers to explore amplified test cases from their familiar environment. From our interviews, we gather 52 observations that we summarize into 23 result categories and give two key recommendations on how future tool designers can make their tools better suited for developer-centric test amplification.

cs.SE↗