Robert Hirschfeld

Toni Mattis, Robert Hirschfeld

The practice of unit testing enables programmers to obtain automated feedback on whether a currently edited program is consistent with the expectations specified in test cases. Feedback is most valuable when it happens immediately, as defects can be corrected instantly before they become harder to fix. With growing and longer running test suites, however, feedback is obtained less frequently and lags behind program changes. The objective of test prioritization is to rank tests so that defects, if present, are found as early as possible or with the least costs. While there are numerous static approaches that output a ranking of tests solely based on the current version of a program, we focus on change-based test prioritization, which recommends tests that likely fail in response to the most recent program change. The canonical approach relies on coverage data and prioritizes tests that cover the changed region, but obtaining and updating coverage data is costly. More recently, information retrieval techniques that exploit overlapping vocabulary between change and tests have proven to be powerful, yet lightweight. In this work, we demonstrate the capabilities of information retrieval for prioritizing tests in dynamic programming languages using Python as example. We discuss and measure previously understudied variation points, including how contextual information around a program change can be used, and design alternatives to the widespread \emph{TF-IDF} retrieval model tailored to retrieving failing tests. To obtain program changes with associated test failures, we designed a tool that generates a large set of faulty changes from version history along with their test results. Using this data set, we compared existing and new lexical prioritization strategies using four open-source Python projects, showing large improvements over untreated and random test orders and results consistent with related work in statically typed languages. We conclude that lightweight IR-based prioritization strategies are effective tools to predict failing tests in the absence of coverage data or when static analysis is intractable like in dynamic languages. This knowledge can benefit both individual programmers that rely on fast feedback, as well as operators of continuous integration infrastructure, where resources can be freed sooner by detecting defects earlier in the build cycle.

David Rauch, Patrick Rein, Stefan Ramson et al.

When working on a program, developers traditionally have to simulate the behavior of the abstract code in their heads until they can execute the application. Live programming aims to support the development and comprehension of programs by providing more immediate feedback on program behavior, but the divide between code and behavior often remains. The goal of example-based live programming is to remove this gap by allowing programmers to explore the actual behavior of their code during development. This is achieved by defining live examples for parts of the application. The idea of live examples has been already addressed in other tools and environments. However, most of those solutions are limited to specific domains and are suitable only for small programs. Thus, we aim to extend the application of example-based live programming to more complex programs potentially spanning multiple modules. We investigate existing solutions to derive a set of requirements for an integration of live examples into source code. Based on these requirements we propose a new approach to live examples and present a prototype in its support. We reproduce, discuss, and extend scenarios from related work to show the practicality of our approach in the context of larger, more complicated, and with that also more realistic scenarios. Also, we measure and evaluate the system response time of our prototypical implementation. Our first results show that example-based live programming can provide more insights into the run-time behavior of parameterized code for non-trivial programs. They also reveal unsolved and new challenges affecting example-based live programming environments. In presenting this more general approach to example-based live programming, we hope to motivate further research into this area and to make practical solutions available.

Patrick Rein, Stefan Ramson, Jens Lincke et al.

Various programming tools, languages, and environments give programmers the impression of changing a program while it is running. This experience of liveness has been discussed for over two decades and a broad spectrum of research on this topic exists. Amongst others, this work has been carried out in the communities around three major ideas which incorporate liveness as an important aspect: live programming, exploratory programming, and live coding. While there have been publications on the focus of each particular community, the overall spectrum of liveness across these three communities has not been investigated yet. Thus, we want to delineate the variety of research on liveness. At the same time, we want to investigate overlaps and differences in the values and contributions between the three communities. Therefore, we conducted a literature study with a sample of 212 publications on the terms retrieved from three major indexing services. On this sample, we conducted a thematic analysis regarding the following aspects: motivation for liveness, application domains, intended outcomes of running a system, and types of contributions. We also gathered bibliographic information such as related keywords and prominent publications. Besides other characteristics the results show that the field of exploratory programming is mostly about technical designs and empirical studies on tools for general-purpose programming. In contrast, publications on live coding have the most variety in their motivations and methodologies with a majority being empirical studies with users. As expected, most publications on live coding are applied to performance art. Finally, research on live programming is mostly motivated by making programming more accessible and easier to understand, evaluating their tool designs through empirical studies with users. In delineating the spectrum of work on liveness, we hope to make the individual communities more aware of the work of the others. Further, by giving an overview of the values and methods of the individual communities, we hope to provide researchers new to the field of liveness with an initial overview.

Toni Mattis, Patrick Rein, Robert Hirschfeld

Live programming environments enable programmers to edit a running program and obtain immediate feedback on each individual change. The liveness quality is valued by programmers to help work in small steps and continuously add or correct small functionality while maintaining the impression of a direct connection between each edit and its manifestation at run-time. Such immediacy may conflict with the desire to perform a combined set of intermediate steps, such as a refactoring, without immediately taking effect after each individual edit. This becomes important when an incomplete sequence of small-scale changes can easily break the running program. State-of-the-art solutions focus on retroactive recovery mechanisms, such as debugging or version control. In contrast, we propose a proactive approach: Multiple individual changes to the program are collected in an Edit Transaction, which can be made effective if deemed complete. Upon activation, the combined steps become visible together. Edit Transactions are capable of dynamic scoping, allowing a set of changes to be tested in isolation before being extended to the running application. This enables a live programming workflow with full control over change granularity, immediate feedback on tests, delayed effect on the running application, and coarse-grained undos. We present an implementation of Edit Transactions along with Edit-Transaction-aware tools in Squeak/Smalltalk. We asses this implementation by conducting a case study with and without the new tool support, comparing programming activities, errors, and detours for implementing new functionality in a running simulation. We conclude that workflows using Edit Transactions have the potential to increase confidence in a change, reduce potential for run-time errors, and eventually make live programming more predictable and engaging.

Stefan Ramson, Robert Hirschfeld

Modern software development without reactive programming is hard to imagine. Reactive programming favors a wide class of contemporary software systems that respond to user input, network messages, and other events. While reactive programming is an active field of research, the implementation of reactive concepts remains challenging. In particular, change detection represents a hard but inevitable necessity when implementing reactive concepts. Typically, change detection mechanisms are not intended for reuse but are tightly coupled to the particular change resolution mechanism. As a result, developers often have to re-implement similar abstractions. A reusable primitive for change detection is still missing. To find a suitable primitive, we identify commonalities in existing reactive concepts. We discover a class of reactive concepts, state-based reactive concepts. All state-based reactive concepts share a common change detection mechanism: they detect changes in the evaluation result of an expression. On the basis of the identified common change detection mechanism, we propose active expressions as a reusable primitive. By abstracting the tedious implementation details of change detection, active expressions can ease the implementation of reactive programming concepts. We evaluate the design of active expressions by re-implementing a number of existing state-based reactive concepts using them. The resulting implementations highlight the expressiveness of active expressions. Active expressions enable the separation of essential from non-essential parts when reasoning about reactive programming concepts. By using active expressions as a primitive for change detection, developers of reactive language constructs and runtime support can now focus on the design of how application programmers should be able to react to change. Ultimately, we would like active expressions to encourage experiments with novel reactive programming concepts and with that to yield a wider variety of them to explore.