CC BY
79
DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2023-35(1)-11
A Systematic Mapping Study on Software Testing in
the DevOps Context
1 B. Pando, ORCID: 0000-0002-8133-631X <brian.pando@unas.edu.pe> 2A. Dávila, ORCID: 0000-0003-2455-9768 <abraham.davila@pucp.edu.pe>
1 National Agrarian University of La Selva,
Tingo María, Huánuco, Peru
2 Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Lima, Perú, 15088
Abstract. DevOps is a philosophy and framework that allows software development and operations teams to work in a coordinated manner, with the purpose of developing and releasing software quickly and cheaply. However, the effectiveness and benefits of DevOps depend on several factors, as reported in the literature. In particular, several studies have been published on software test automation, which is a cornerstone for the continuous integration phase in DevOps, which needs to be identified and classified. This study consolidates and classifies the existing literature on automated tests in the DevOps context. For the study, a systematic mapping study was performed to identify and classify papers on automated testing in DevOps based on 8 research questions. In the query of 6 relevant databases, 3,312 were obtained; and then, after the selection process, 299 papers were selected as primary studies. Researchers maintain a continuing and growing interest in software testing in the DevOps context. Most of the research (71.2%) is carried out in the industry and is done on web applications and SOA. The most reported types of tests are unit and integration tests.
Keywords: DevOps; software testing; systematic mapping study
For citation: Pando B., Dávila A. A Systematic Mapping Study on Software Testing in the DevOps Context. Trudy ISP RAN/Proc. ISP RAS, vol. 35, issue 1, 2023. pp. 163-188. DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2023-35(1)-11
Acknowledgments. Authors recognize reviews from members of Grupo de Investigación y Desarrollo en Ingeniería de Software - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú GIDIS-PUCP).
Систематический обзор литературы по тестированию программного обеспечения в контексте DevOps
1 Б. Пандо, ORCID: 0000-0002-8133-631X<brian.pando@unas.edu.pe> 2А. Давила, ORCID: 0000-0003-2455-9768 <abraham.davila@pucp.edu.pe> 1 Национальный аграрный университет Ла-Сельвы, Перу, Уануко, Тинго Мария 2 Папский католический университет Перу, Перу, 15088, Лима
Аннотация. DevOps - это философия и инфраструктура, которые позволяют группам разработчиков и эксплуатации программного обеспечения работать скоординированно с целью быстрой и дешевой разработки и выпуска программного обеспечения. Однако, как сообщается в литературе, эффективность и преимущества DevOps зависят от нескольких факторов. В частности, было опубликовано несколько результатов исследований по автоматизации тестирования программного обеспечения, которая является краеугольным камнем фазы непрерывной интеграции в DevOps. Эти работы нуждаются в идентификации и классификации. В нашем исследовании консолидируется и классифицируется существующая литература по автоматизированному тестированию в контексте
163
DevOps. Для исследования было проведено систематическое сопоставление литературных источников на основе 8 исследовательских вопросов. Путем выполнения запросов к шести уместным базам данных было получено 3312 статей. После процесса отбора 299 статей были выбраны в качестве основных. Исследователи сохраняют постоянный и растущий интерес к тестированию программного обеспечения в контексте DevOps. Большая часть исследований (71,2%) проводится в производственной сфере и затрагивают веб-приложения и SOA. Наиболее распространенными типами тестов являются модульные и интеграционные тесты.
Ключевые слова: DevOps; тестирование программного обеспечения; систематический обзор литературы
Для цитирования: Пандо Б., Давила А. Систематический обзор литературы по тестированию программного обеспечения в контексте DevOps. Труды ИСП РАН, том 35, вып. 1, 2023 г., стр. 163-188. DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2023-35(1 )-11
Благодарности. Авторы признательны за отзывы членам Группы исследований и разработок в области программной инженерии Папского католического университета Перу.
1. Introduction
The software market constantly demands strategies that allow it to deal with changes quickly [1], [2]. However, these strategies must maintain quality and avoid the costs of application downtime and failure [3]. Although agile methods are presented as a good alternative; these do not close the cycle until the delivery and operation of the software [4]. In this context, the DevOps philosophy and framework extends the agile methodology to deliver applications quickly and frequently [5], improving performance and costs [6], and taking care of the product quality [7], [8], [9]. So, with the support of top management [10], DevOps can represent a great opportunity for companies of any size to gain a foothold in the market [11]. For this reason, various companies have been adopting it [12] or have adopted plans [13]. Also, DevOps is a key factor in the microservices architecture [14]. In the field of the software industry, the introduction of the term DevOps, in 2008 [15], made it possible to articulate a set of practices that had already been taking place. In particular, the continuous integration practice that is based, among others, on automated tests [16], which represents one of the vital factors for its adoption [17], despite long-standing efforts to resolve this challenge [18], [19]. On the other hand, in the academic field, various literature review studies have been carried out where: (i) it is pointed out that the concept of DevOps is not completely defined [20]; (ii) the definitions, practices and benefits of DevOps are categorized [21]; (iii) the relevant aspects are determined [22], [23]; (iv) the factors that interrupt its adoption are identified [24]; (v) the influence on the product is presented [7]; and, (vi) in [2], a strong need to respond quickly to the market is reported and that DevOps helps to address this problem.
Since software testing is a critical factor for the adoption of DevOps [25], it should be reviewed how it is being applied in the reported cases. For this reason, this paper consolidates and classifies the literature on applied software testing in a DevOps context. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the fundamental aspects of this study are presented; in Section 3, the Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) is described; in Section 4, the results of the SMS are presented; and, in Section 5, the conclusions are established.
2. Background
In this section, DevOps and software testing are briefly presented; as well as the works related to this study.
2.1 DevOps
DevOps integrates the teams that are usually separated (development and operations), focusing on delivering value quickly and continuously, based on 4 dimensions [22]: collaboration, automation, measurement and monitoring. In DevOps [4], it has extended the already known practices of agile 164
methods, distributing them in 3 phases: construction phase, deployment phase, and operation phase. In addition, it incorporates some existing practices such as: continuous integration [26], continuous deployment [27], continuous delivery [28], and continuous testing [29].
2.2 Software Testing in Agile and DevOps Context
Software testing [30] are activities in the software development process to determine that the software has the expected behavior under a list of test cases. Tests can be categorized, according to [31]: (i) object of the test (unit, integration and system); and (ii) test objective (acceptance, installation, alpha, beta, regression, performance, security, load, recovery, bottom-out, interface, configuration, usability, and interaction).
In the agile context, agile tests have shown their benefits [32], [33], being necessary that the software-testers are present from the collection of requirements [34] and maintain fluid communication, both formal and informal, with the programmers [35].
3. Research Metodology
In this study, a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) was performed. The SMS proposed by [36] is a research technique to identify and characterize all available studies on a given topic, using a reliable and verifiable methodology.
3.1 Scope and Research Questions
Software testing is one of the pillars to encourage good results in DevOps contexts [5], [8], and on which various publications have been made that require identification, studied and classified. For this reason, an SMS was performed with the purpose of identifying the levels of software tests that are being used in these contexts, as well as the authors, their evolution and the regions where the subject is being investigated, among others. The research questions and considerations for the answers are:
RQ-1 What is the evolution of the publication of papers on software testing in the DevOps contexts?
The year of publication was taken as relevant data. RQ-2 What kind of research has been done in software testing in DevOps? The types of research, adapted from [37], are: (i) survey/interview, (ii) case study, (iii) multiple case study, (iv) replication study, (v) review or literature mapping, and, (vi) background theory. RQ-3 What kinds of proposals have been presented on software testing in DevOps? The types of
proposals are an emerging classification and can be: methods, tools, frameworks. RQ-4 What levels of software testing are used in DevOps? The possible test levels, depending on
the object of the test, are: unit, integration, user, security and load/performance [31]. RQ-5 What programming languages and software testing tools are used in DevOps? Possible
answers, at least initially, are: Java, C, PHP, JS, Xunit, Selenium. RQ-6 In what types of applications are software testing used in the DevOps context? The possible
answers, at least initially, are: web, desktop, console, mobile. RQ-7 What infrastructure tools are used for software testing in DevOps? Possible answers are:
Jenkins, Travis, Docker, AWS, Azure. RQ-8 In what types of activities do software testing occur in DevOps? Possible answers are: Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment, Continuous Delivery. Also, are security tests mentioned?
3.2 Search Query
Searches were performed according to a generated search string of the population (P) and intervention (I) as suggested [36]. The terms related to (P) are: DevOps, Continuous Integration, Continuous Testing, Continuous Deployment, and Continuous Delivery. The term related to I is: test. Then, the search string stayed as "P and I": "(DevOps OR "continuous integration" OR "continuous deployment" OR "continuous delivery" OR "continuous testing") AND test*". Although a string in English was searched, papers written in Spanish and Portuguese were also considered. Also, to allow for as many results as possible, the date was not restricted. The digital databases are: IEEE Xplore, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect. ACM Digital Library, Web of Science and Willey, selected for their scientific relevance and access to them.
3.3 Data Selection
The selection process was defined in four stages, where the inclusion criteria (IC) and exclusion criteria (EC) are applied (see Table 1); and according to [36] the quality assessment is omitted since relevant digital databases were chosen. The defined selection process has the following stages:
• In the first stage, obtaining the metadata, the EC.1 and IC.2 criteria are used, and the Parsifal web application to facilitate some operations, such as discarding duplicate papers in the different databases.
• In the second stage, the title is read and EC.2 is applied, to rule out papers that are not related to the subject of software testing in the DevOps contexts.
• In the third stage, reading the summaries, IC.2, IC.3, EC.3 is applied.
• In the fourth stage, a quick reading is made of the content of the study to determine its relevance to the subject of software testing in DevOps contexts and criteria IC.2, IC.3, EC.3 and EC.4 are applied. Likewise, at this stage, the papers to which the full text is not available (EC.5) are withdrawn.
Table 1. Inclusion Criteria (IC) and Exclusion Criteria (EC)
Id Criteria
IC.1 IC. 1 Paper in indexed journals or conferences whose memories are indexed.
IC.2 IC.2 Paper with content in English, Spanish or Portuguese.
IC.3 IC.3 Paper that focuses on software testing in the DevOps context.
EC.1 EC.1 Duplicate article.
EC.2 EC.2 Paper outside the topic of software and DevOps.
EC.3 EC.3 Paper that does not mention software testing levels or strategies.
EC.4 EC.4 Secondary or tertiary articles.
EC.5 EC.5 Paper whose content is not available.
To extract the data, a file was created (see Table 2) to be used in a spreadsheet and collect the data from the papers on it.
Table 2. Structure of the data extraction form
Data Detail Question
Id Study Unique identifier of the study created for the MSL. General
Title Title of the paper. RQ-1
Author List of authors of the paper. RQ-1
The year Year in which the paper was published. RQ-1
Type of publication Journal or conference where the paper was published. RQ-1
Country Country of affiliation of the authors. RQ-1
Research type Categorizes the type of research of the paper. RQ-2
Context Categorizes between the academic or industrial context of the paper. RQ-2
Domain Categorizes the business domain where the item was applied. RQ-2
Type of proposal Categorizes the type of proposal of the paper, if applicable. RQ-3
Test Level Categorizes the test levels mentioned in the paper. RQ-3, RQ-4
Continuous phase Categorizes the continuous phase mentioned in the paper. RQ-4
Method Identifies the method or good development practices. RQ-4
Testing tool Identifies the testing tool used. RQ-5
Version Control Identifies the tool used for code version management. RQ-5
Programming language Programming language mentioned in the paper. RQ-5, RQ-6
Type App Type of software developed in the paper. RQ-6
Architecture type Type of the architecture of the application developed in the paper. RQ-6
Infrastructure tool Collects the infrastructure tools used in the research presented in the paper. RQ-7
Security Identifies if the paper mentions the security tests RQ-8
Teams in DevOps Identifies if the paper addresses Devs, Ops or both teams. RQ-8
4. Results
The searches in the considered databases were carried out between June and July 2021. For each database, the search string was adapted according to its own rules (see Table 3). Of the 3,312 papers found, it was processed stage by stage until reaching a total of 299 primary studies. The process was based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the study planning. Table 4 shows the number of papers that remained after each stage. In addition, 15 (5%) papers were withdrawn because the full text was not available, even after having searched different sources. The list of primary studies is available in Appendix A.
Table 3. Database search string
Source Search string Quantity
IEEE (("All Metadata":Devops) OR ("All Metadata":"Continuous Integration") OR ("All Metadata" :"Continuous Deployment") OR ("All Metadata":"Continuous Delivery") OR ("All Metadata":"Continuous Testing")) AND (("All Metadata":Test*)) 529
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ((devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND test*) 1,561
ACM Title: ((Devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND Test*) OR Abstract:((Devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND Test*) OR Keyword:((Devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND Test*) 246
Science Direct Title-keyword-abstract (Devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND Test 462
Web of Science TITLE-ABS-KEY ((devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND test*) 432
Willey TITLE-ABS-KEY ((devops OR "Continuous Integration" OR "Continuous Deployment" OR "Continuous Delivery" OR "Continuous Testing") AND test*) 82
Total 3,312
Table 4. Search results by stage
Procedure Selection Criteria Total
First stage EC.1, IC.1 1,179
Second stage EC.2 928
Third stage IC.2, IC.3, EC.3 344
Fourth Stage IC.2, IC.3, EC.3, EC.4, EC5 299
4.1 RQ1 What is the evolution of the publication of papers on software testing in the DevOps contexts?
From the selected primary studies, from 2011 to Jun-2021 (see Figure 1a), it is observed that the level of publications has been increasing from the beginning, which shows the importance of software testing in DevOps contexts and that coincides with those indicated by [3 8]. In addition, this growth is expected to continue in the following years.
Fig 1. Evolution ofpublications per year (a), and publications by country (b) in DevOps software testing
Although the topic of DevOps is of global importance, it can be seen (see Figure 1b) that according to the Pareto rule 80% of the studies are concentrated in 16 countries: USA (16.7%), Germany (10.7%), India (9.4%), Italy (6%), Canada (5%), Switzerland (4.7%), China (3.7%), Sweden (3.7%) Australia (3.3%), Finland (3.3%) and Brazil (2.7%), UK (2.7%), the Netherlands (2%), Spain (2%), Ireland (2%), Korea (1.7%) and Belgium (1.7%).
On the other hand, the publication media where they have been published 4 or more primary studies are 14 media and are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Frequency ofprimary studies by means of communication, which have 4 or more publications
Venue Count
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11
Communications in Computer and Information Science 9
CEUR Workshop Proceedings 9
International Conference on Software Engineering 9
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 7
International Workshop on Quality-Aware DevOps (QUDOS) 7
IEEE Software 5
Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Application (SEAA) 5
Information and Software Technology 5
IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) 5
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 4
International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICSTW) 4
International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) 4
Journal of System and Software 4
4.2 RQ2 What types of research have been done on software testing in DevOps?
From the primary studies, on types of research (see Figure 2a), there are two predominant types of research (78.6%): 136 study cases (45.5%) and 99 experiments (33.1%); which are mostly reported in the industry. This orientation, towards the more empirical side, makes sense, since the cases and experiments of integrating Dev and Ops work teams materialize in real projects. This result coincides with the study by [39], who also found a high percentage (20%) of papers at the industry level. Of the remaining group of research types, it can be pointed out that those related to opinion-research allow concepts, ideas, lessons to be proposed when dealing with software testing in DevOps. Likewise, the result of the research context shows that 213 (71.2%) according to Figure 2b, are papers in the industry, compared to 29 (9.7%) are papers in academia; which reinforces the idea of the previous result.
Fig 2. Distribution ofprimary studies of software testing in the DevOps context, by: (a) research type, (b)
research context, and (c) application domain Finally, from the perspective of the application domain (see Figure 2c), 185 (61.8%) papers have been applied to commercial solutions, that is, applications to sell products, rent services, etc. Likewise, an interesting focus is seen in the education sector, where 27 (9%) primary studies have focused on applications for education (support for the teaching/learning process).
Fig 3. Types of proposals by test levels
4.3 RQ-3 What kinds of proposals have been presented on software testing in DevOps?
In Figure 3, it can be seen that 216 (72.2% primary studies) propose tools to support DevOps contexts, incorporating software testing as part of them. Furthermore, 40 (14%) and 3 (1%) papers propose methods and frameworks respectively to support testing work. These results are in agreement with the results obtained in the study by [40], they point out that tools and frameworks have been proposed and that most are based on unit tests and automated integration.
4.4 RQ-4 What levels of software testing are used in DevOps?
In relation to the levels of software testing used in DevOps (see Figure 4a), the response of "not precise" are 139 papers (46.5%). Despite this, these works do indicate that software testing is a DevOps necessity, but they do not specify the levels of testing in the DevOps context. In the case of the primary studies, which do indicate the levels of proof, it follows that: (i) 122 papers (35.1%) have reported unit and user interface tests; (ii) 33 papers (11%) have reported load and stress; and, (iii) the rest are user tests and penetration testing (pen-testing). The work of [41] and [42] agree that unit and integration tests are among the most studied. Likewise, [41] adds functional, load and stress tests as the most studied with 63.6% of the total studies reviewed; and, they consider that security tests are much less studied with 3.6%. According to reviews from [43] and [44], GUI and accessibility tests are still pending challenges in continuous contexts.
Fig 4. Test levels (a) grouped by continuous phase and (b) methods used in software testing in DevOps According to this Figure 4a, in relation to the opportunity in the use of software tests in DevOps, it can be pointed out that 162 papers (54.2%) have been applied during continuous integration; which, at first glance, turns out to be the natural space for testing. However, 84 (28.1%) papers have also been identified that have used tests to solve activities in continuous delivery and 44 (14.7%) in continuous deployment, which shows that 42.8% of the tests are outside continuous integration. According to Figure 4b, in relation to the software development methodology, from the primary studies, it has been determined as "not precise" in 217 (72.6%) papers. In the other cases, it shows 75 (25.1%) papers used agile methodologies, and more explicitly points to TDD and XP with 5 (1.7%) papers, considering both. In particular, in the case of TDD studies, they consider the method important for the success of software testing in DevOps. This suggests that, for now, although TDD is a very good method, there are few studies in this type of context. Similarly, the studies by [43] and [39] consider that TDD would help to better conceptualize testing strategies and mitigate system design errors for help continuous testing.
4.5 RQ-5 What programming languages and software testing tools are used in DevOps?
Due to the nature and objectives of the primary studies, in many cases, programming languages, testing support tools, and version control tools are not required. In the case of programming languages (see Figure 5), it is observed that Java is the most reported language with 90 (30%) papers. In the case of test support tools, Junit with 25 (8.4%) and Selenium with 13 (4.3%) papers are the most reported. Finally, in the case of version control tools, Git is mentioned in 179 (59.9%) of papers.
TooJs
1 TestfJG:1 1
1 PtffciM 1
1 NoscTesl. 1 ™P 1
1 1
1 j™tcr:1 1
2 PHPUmtZ 2
4 5 1 3 Setenji^in 13 9 4
4 20 1 19 6
131 63 24 Ф to 6 2 NoPsft,:354 i T i 146 108
NoPse: 3B Jova:90 jy : / 1 JS:23 1 1 PHP 12 Buby:6 1 1 1 C2 Gib: 178 i J I T М<хРгвсве:120
Lang vc
Fig 5. Software testing tools in DevOps by programming languages and version control
In the review of [39], it is agreed that Junit, Selenium and Git are the most frequent tools in the DevOps software testing application. In addition [39], considers NUnit among the most frequent, however, of the selected primary studies, no reference to said tool was found. According to Figure 6a, Java is the most used language over time with an average of 13 papers per year, while Python has been considered in recent years, with an average of 4 papers per year as presented in Figure 6b.
Fig 6. Programming languages in software testing over time (a) and average per year (b)
4.6 RQ-6 In what types of applications and architectures is software testing used in the DevOps context?
In relation to the types of applications where software tests are used in DevOps (see Figure 7a), reported in the primary studies, web applications with 219 (71.9%) papers have to be the most reported applications, and to a lesser extent, mobile applications with 13 (4.3%) papers. The identified console applications are reported for cases in which they apply machine learning concepts and use this type of application to display the results. In relation to the types of architecture (see Figure 7b), the primary studies indicate that 134 (44.8%) are of the MVC type and 52 (17.4%) are of the SOA type, and especially, of the latter, 14 studies report REST as a technology communication. Despite this, 85 (28.4%) papers which represent a high percentage that does not need it.
(a) (b)
Web Nn-Ptctist Mubfc ¡rl*i:.ki Cvudle MM N.-I l'ni^ SOA v.-rjin
Fig 7. Type of applications (a) and architectures (b) in software testing in DevOps
For [39], 33% of their studies found are web applications, being the most frequent for DevOps software tests; and it also agrees that few researches, that is, 1.6%, are reported on embedded applications.
4.7 RQ-7 What tools are used for software testing in DevOps?
Regarding the tools, it can be pointed out that they are not reported in 111 (37.1%) of the studies (see Figure 8a). In the studies that are reported, Jenkins is present in 92 (30.8%) primary studies. This result coincides with the review by [39] who also found Jenkins to be the most studied tool. In the industry, Jenkins is known as a very versatile tool that allows you to automatically run tests written by the development team, whether they are unit, integration, UI, loading and others. Crossing these results with the years of publication, according to Figure 8b, it can be seen that Jenkins has been increasingly reported in primary studies since 2013. It is also observed, according to Figure 8c, in relation to the average of the publications of papers per year, which Docker has about 6.8 papers/year since 2016, AWS is 3.3 since 2018 and GitLab is 4.8 since 2017. This result shows that Docker is being recurrently reported in the selected primary studies. In the interviews conducted by [42], containerization is mentioned as one of the most studied solutions in continuous delivery.
Fig 8. Software testing tools in DevOps (a) by years (b) and, distributed over time and average per year (c)
In Figure 9, it can be seen that Java appears in 40 (13.4%) primary studies, being used in conjunction with Jenkins, becoming the most frequent language for Jenkins. Furthermore, in the case of Java, 19 (21%) papers have been applied in industry and 3 (4%) in the academic context. Figure 10 shows that 63 (21%) Jenkins primary studies have been studied in the industry and Docker with 34 (7.4%) is behind Jenkins. This shows that Jenkins is the most studied software testing tool in DevOps contexts.
Fig 9. Programming languages and tools in DevOps software testing
Fig 10. Tools in DevOps for software testing according to its context
Fig 11. Test tools, infrastructure in DevOps (a) and application context (b)
Figure 11a shows that although Java was often used as a programming language, Junit was not necessarily mentioned in these studies. However, Junit does appear as the most mentioned testing tools in the primary studies. In addition, these, for the most part, 185 (61.8%) papers have been applied in commercial business domains. Figure 11b confirms that Junit is also applied in the industrial context.
4.8 RQ-8 In what types of activities do software testing occur in DevOps? Also, are safety tests mentioned?
According to Figure 12, the selected primary studies show that more than 230 (75%) have concerned themselves with both what is needed in development and in operation, be it with tools, methods, frameworks or suggestions. 60 (20%) papers have studied the specific activities of development teams. Finally, only 9 (3%) have focused solely on operating activities.
2SO 230
200 |
ISO
100
$0
50 n ■
Di-vOps Devü
Fig 12. Software testing in DevOps phases
According to Figure 13, more than half of the papers found, that is 169 (56.6%), mention application security as an important factor in the DevOps contexts, despite the fact that there are only 15 application testing papers. penetration (see Figure 4a). These findings are in the same direction as that indicated by [45], [46] and [3 9], about the need to study more about the security issues in Devops contexts, also known as DevSecOps. This allows you to integrate these types of tests into your development tools.
■ No ■ Yes
Fig 13. Mention of security in software testing in DevOps
4.9 Threats to Validity
The analysis of the threats to validity was based on the work and questions proposed by [47].
• Study Selection Validation. During the planning of the research, in order to ensure the proper identification of all relevant studies, the following was carried out: (i) a preliminary search to identify a relevant set of 20 "test" papers that allowed validating the research questions research, the search chain and selection process; then, (ii) Population and Intervention was used, according to [36], to structure a convenient search chain, actually an iterative task; (iii) a chain test was carried out with the "test" papers, and a check was made if the data obtained from said "test" papers allowed to answer the research questions; and (iv) it was established to work with 6 relevant digital databases.
The selection was made using the methodology proposed by [36]. Duplicate papers were filtered in the exclusion criteria by DOI, title, authors and year. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were discussed by the authors based on similar research. At each stage, a general criterion was applied, that, when in doubt of acceptance or rejection, acceptance is chosen so that the paper is
subsequently evaluated. This reloads the next stage, but reduces the risk of deleting relevant papers.
• Data Validation. Taking into account what was indicated in [36], it was decided to only work with relevant digital databases. These databases usually already have evaluation schemes for the journals and reports of events that they incorporate. In this context, it was decided not to make a quality assessment in the selection process.
In the first 100 primary studies, a first consolidation was performed, and these studies were discussed between both authors. The evaluation also made it possible to note the relationship of the results with the subject under research. The classification schemes were proposed during the planning of the SMS and were refined, in some cases, during the data extraction. Additionally, the verification of the selection was carried out by the second author in a sample manner.
• Research Validation. Both authors are related to the research topic and the second author has more experience in secondary studies. The work carried out is replicable since all the data collected during the research are publicly accessible, phase by phase, as well as the general search string and the personalized ones for each database. At the beginning of the research, it was determined by the research questions and the results of the first stages, that the research would be a systematic mapping of literature due to the need to classify software tests in DevOps contexts. The research can be generalized to all DevOps contexts because it collects the information without considering specific regions, places or periods. In addition, it considers primary studies from both industry and academia.
5. Conclusions
This research presents a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) on software testing in the DevOps context. The SMS is based on the proposal of [36]. In the selection process, 3,312 studies were obtained and at the end of the process, 299 were selected as primary studies. Based on the data obtained from the primary studies, it was possible to answer the 8 research questions raised. The interest of research on software testing in the DevOps context is current and continuously growing since 2011. It is also appreciated that it is a global interest, in particular, considering that there are 16 countries from 3 regions (America, Europe and Asia) who have published 239 (80%) of the studies. In accordance with the origin and empirical nature of DevOps, the majority of primary studies, which mean 235 (78.6%) are of the type of case studies and experiments. Likewise, 213 of these studies have been carried out in industry contexts (71.2%) and 185 in commercial applications (61.8%). In addition, 216 (72.2%) primary studies have proposed tools that support test automation. The results also indicate that software testing is considered an important factor in DevOps issues, but what levels of testing are being used are not specified. But, in those that do specify, unit and integration tests are the most studied, and to a lesser extent, user, load and stress and security tests. In relation to technology, such as programming language and test support tools, it can be noted that these issues are not explicitly reported in primary studies. In the cases that do report, it is pointed out that Java is the most reported language with 90 (30%) both in academic and industrial environments; and in the case of test development tools, 25 papers, that is means, more than 8.3% have been reported to Junit. Other reported programming languages are: Python, Js and PHP respectively. Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that Java is the most reported language in primary studies over time, with an average of 13 papers per year.
The most studied types of applications are those of the Web type with 216 (72.2%), based on both SOA and MVC. One of the most reported tools is Jenkins for both continuous integration, continuous deployment and continuous delivery. In addition, tools such as: Travis, Docker, GitLab, Github and AWS are also reported, showing that the studies carried out are applied to current market tools.
The results of this research show research opportunities in software testing for the DevOps contexts.
Likewise, it is clear that training in automated software testing skills could help small companies to
compete in the world market with quality.
References / Список литературы
[1] Samarawickrama S.S., Perera I. Continuous scrum: A framework to enhance scrum with DevOps. In Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions, 2017, pp. 19-25.
[2] Nicolau de França B.B., Jeronimo H., Travassos G.H. Characterizing DevOps by hearing multiple voices. In Proc. of the XXX Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, 201б, pp. 53-б2.
[3] Elliot S. DevOps and the Cost of Downtime: Fortune 1000 Best Practice Metrics Quantified. IDC, 2015, 13 p.
[4] Ebert C., Gallardo G. et al. «DevOps», IEEE Software, vol. 33, issue 3, 201б, pp. 94-100.
[5] Riungu-Kalliosaari L, Mäkinen S. et al. DevOps Adoption Benefits and Challenges in Practice: A Case Study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10027, 201б, pp. 590-597.
[6] Stillwell M., Coutinho J.G.F. A DevOps approach to integration of software components in an EU research project. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Quality-Aware DevOps, 2015, pp. 1-б.
[7] Céspedes D., Angeleri P. et al. Software Product Quality in DevOps Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1071, Springer, 2020, pp. 51-б4.
[8] Perera P., Silva R., Perera I. Improve software quality through practicing DevOps. In Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions, 2017, pp. 13-18.
[9] Elberzhager F., Arif T. et al. From Agile Development to DevOps: Going Towards Faster Releases at High Quality - Experiences from an Industrial Context. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 2б9, 2017, pp. 33-44.
[10] Jones S., Noppen J., Lettice F. Management challenges for devops adoption within UK SMEs. In Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Quality-Aware DevOps, 201б, pp. 7-11.
[11] Soni M. End to End Automation on Cloud with Build Pipeline: The Case for DevOps in Insurance Industry, Continuous Integration, Continuous Testing, and Continuous Delivery. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets, 2015, pp. 85-89.
[12] Senapathi M., Buchan J., Osman H. DevOps capabilities, practices, and challenges: Insights from a case study. In Proc. of the International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 2018, pp. 57-б7.
[13] Chen L. Continuous Delivery: Overcoming adoption challenges. Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 128, 2017, pp. 72-8б.
[14] Valdivia J.A., Lora-González A. et al. Patterns Related to Microservice Architecture: a Multivocal Literature Review. Programming and Computer Software, vol. 4б, issue 8, 2020, pp. 594-б08 / Вальдивия Х.А., Лора-Гонсалес А и др. Паттерны микросервисной архитектуры: многопрофильный обзор литературы. Труды ИСП РАН, том 33, вып. 1, 2021 г., стр. 81-9б. DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2021-33(1 )-б.
[15] Debois P. Agile Infrastructure & Operations. In Proc. of the Agile 2008 Conference, 2008, pp. 202-207.
[16] Virmani M. Understanding DevOps & bridging the gap from continuous integration to continuous delivery. In Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Innovative Computing Technology, 2015, pp. 7882.
[17] Mullaguru S.N. Changing Scenario of Testing Paradigms using DevOps--A Comparative Study with Classical Models. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, vol. 15, issue 2, 2015, pp. 23-27.
[18] Chernonozhkin S.K. Automated Test Generation and Static Analysis. Programming and Computer Software, vol. 27, issue 2, 2001, pp. 8б-94 / Черноножкин С.К. Задача автоматического построения тестов и статистический анализ. Программирование, том 27, вып. 2, 2001 г., стр. 47-59.
[19] Kuliamin V.V., Petrenko A.K. et al. The UniTesK Approach to Designing Test Suites. Programming and Computer Software, vol. 29, issue б, 2003, pp. 310-322 / Кулямин В.В., Петренко А.К. и др. Подход UniTesK к разработке тестов. Программирование, том 29, вып. 6, 2003 г., стр. 25-43.
[20] Jabbari R., Ali N., Petersen K. What is DevOps?: A Systematic Mapping Study on Definitions and Practices. In Proce. of the Scientific Workshop of XP2016, 201б, article no. 12, 11 p.
[21] Ghantous G.B., Gill A. DevOps: Concepts, Practices, Tools, Benefits and Challenges. In Proc. of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), 2017, article no. 96, 13 p.
[22] Lwakatare L.E., Kuvaja P., Oivo M. Dimensions of DevOps. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 212, 2015, pp. 212-217.
[23] Katal A., Bajoria V., Dahiya S. DevOps: Bridging the gap between development and operations. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication, 2019, pp. 1-7.
[24] Kamuto M.B., Langerman J.J. Factors inhibiting the adoption of DevOps in large organisations: South African context. In Proc. of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Recent Trends in Electronics, Information and Communication Technology, 2017, pp. 48-51.
[25] Zimmerer P. Strategy for Continuous Testing in iDevOps. In Proc. of the IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2018, pp. 532-533.
[26] Fowler M. Continuous Integration. 2006. Available at: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html, accessed 28-nov-2020.
[27] Parnin C., Helms E. et al. The Top 10 Adages in Continuous Deployment. IEEE Software, vol. 34, issue 3, 2017, pp. 86-95.
[28] Fowler M. Continuous Delivery. 30-may-2013. Available at:: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ContinuousDelivery.html, accessed 28-nov-2020.
[29] Fitzgerald B., Stol K.J. Continuous software engineering and beyond: Trends and challenge. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering, 2014, pp. 1-9.
[30] ISO/IEC/IEEE, «ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2017 Systems and software engineering - Vocabulary. Geneva, 2017.
[31] Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society, 2014, 339 p.
[32] Gupta R.K., Manikreddy P., Gv A. Challenges in adapting agile testing in a legacy product. In Proc. of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2016, pp. 104-108.
[33] Jeeva Padmini K.V., Kankanamge P.S. et al. Challenges faced by agile testers: A case study. In Proc. of the Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference, 2018, pp. 431-436.
[34] Coutinho J.C.S., Andrade W.L., Machado P.D.L. Requirements engineering and software testing in agile methodologies: A systematic mapping. In Proc. of the XXXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, 2019, pp. 322-331.
[35] Cruzes D.S., Moe N.B., Dyba T. Communication between developers and testers in distributed continuous agile testing. In Proc. of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2016, pp. 59-68.
[36] Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, vol. 64, 2015, pp. 1-18.
[37] Kuhrmann M., Diebold P., Münch J. Software process improvement: A systematic mapping study on the state of the art. PeerJ Computer Science, issue 5, 2016, article no. 62, 38 p.
[38] Pinto G., Castor F. et al. Work practices and challenges in continuous integration: A survey with Travis CI users. Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 48, issue 12, 2018, pp. 2223-2236.
[39] Shahin M., Ali Babar M., Zhu L. Continuous Integration, Delivery and Deployment: A Systematic Review on Approaches, Tools, Challenges and Practices. IEEE Access, vol. 5, 2017, pp. 3909-3943.
[40] Alnafessah A., Gias A.U. et al. Quality-Aware DevOps Research: Where Do We Stand. IEEE Access, vol. 9, 2021, pp. 44476-44489.
[41] Mascheroni M.A., Irrazábal E. Continuous Testing and Solutions for Testing Problems in Continuous Delivery: A Systematic Literature Review. Computación y Sistemas, vol. 22, issue 3, 2018, pp. 10091038.
[42] Shahin M., Babar M.A. et al. Beyond Continuous Delivery: An Empirical Investigation of Continuous Deployment Challenges. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2017, pp. 111-120.
[43] Laukkanen E., Itkonen J., Lassenius C. Problems, causes and solutions when adopting continuous delivery - A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, vol. 82, 2017, pp. 55-79.
[44] Sane P. A Brief Survey of Current Software Engineering Practices in Continuous Integration and Automated Accessibility Testing. In Proc. of the International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking, 2021, pp. 130-134.
[45] Rajapakse R.N., Zahedi M. et al. Challenges and solutions when adopting DevSecOps: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, vol. 141, 2021, article no. 106700, 27 p.
[46] Daoudagh S., Lonetti F., Marchetti E. Continuous Development and Testing of Access and Usage Control. In Proc. of the European Symposium on Software Engineering, 2020, pp. 51-59.
[47] Ampatzoglou A., Bibi S. et al. Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies», Information and Software Technology, vol. 106, 2019, pp. 201-230.
Appendix A. List of Primary Studies
Table A. Primary Studies
ID Authors Year Title
S01 K. Priyadarsini and E. Fantin Irudaya Raj and A. Yasmine Begum and V. Shanmugasundaram 2020 Comparing DevOps procedures from the context of a systems engineer
S02 Casola V., De Benedictis A., Rak M., Salzillo G. 2020 A cloud secdevops methodology: From design to testing
S03 Fehlmann T., Kranich E. 2020 A Framework for Automated Testing
S04 Amaral C.J., Kampik T., Cranefield S. 2020 A framework for collaborative and interactive agent-oriented developer operations
S05 C. Klammer; J. Gmeiner 2020 A Lightweight Customized Build Chain Visualization Approach Applied in Industry
S06 Casola V., De Benedictis A., Rak M., Villano U. 2020 A methodology for automated penetration testing of cloud applications
S07 R. Guntha; S. N. Rao; H. Muccini; M. Vinodini Ramesh 2020 A Novel Paradigm for Rapid Yet Robust Continuous Delivery of Software for Disaster Management Scenarios
S08 Hsu W., Lin J.-S., Chen Y.-C., Wang C.-Y., Huang C.-T. 2020 An Automatic Software Quality and Function Assurance Case Study for Agile
S09 Cai Y.X., Shang Y.F., Tan Y.X., Tang Z.W., Zhao B. 2020 An Effective Solution for Application Orchestration
S10 R. W. Macarthy; J. M. Bass 2020 An Empirical Taxonomy of DevOps in Practice
S11 A. Kanchana; C. Murthy B.N. 2020 Automated Development and Testing of ECUs in Automotive Industry with Jenkins
S12 Avritzer A. 2020 Automated scalability assessment in devops environments
S13 Rakshith M.N., Shivaprasad N. 2020 Build Optimization Using Jenkins
S14 Karlas B., Interlandi M., Renggli C., Wu W., Zhang C., Mukunthu Iyappan Babu D., Edwards J., Lauren C., Xu A., Weimer M. 2020 Building Continuous Integration Services for Machine Learning
S15 G. Ambrosino; G. B. Fioccola; R. Canonico; G. Ventre 2020 Container Mapping and its Impact on Performance in Containerized Cloud Environments
S16 S. H. Reiterer; S. Balci; D. Fu; M. Benedikt; A. Soppa; H. Szczerbicka 2020 Continuous Integration for Vehicle Simulations
S17 L. Gota; D. Gota; L. Miclea 2020 Continuous Integration in Automation Testing
S18 Gorsky S.A. 2020 Continuous integration, delivery, and deployment for scientific workflows in Orlando Tools
S19 T. Rangnau; R. v. Buijtenen; F. Fransen; F. Turkmen 2020 Continuous Security Testing: A Case Study on Integrating Dynamic Security Testing Tools in CI/CD Pipelines
S20 M. Johnson; D. Cummings; B. Leinwand; C. Elsberry 2020 Continuous Testing and Deployment for Urban Air Mobility
S21 Angara J., Prasad S. 2020 Continuous testing real-time health analytics dashboard
S22 Dolezel M. 2020 Defining testops: Collaborative behaviors and technology-driven workflows seen as enablers of effective software testing in devops
S23 Török M., Pataki N. 2020 DevOps dashboard with heatmap
S24 Yang D., Wang D., Yang D., Dong Q., Wang Y., Zhou H., Daocheng H. 2020 DevOps in practice for education management information system at ECNU
S25 Laaber C., Würsten S., Gall H.C., Leitner P. 2020 Dynamically reconfiguring software microbenchmarks: Reducing execution time without sacrificing result quality
S26 Al-Sabbagh K.W., Staron M., Ochodek M., Meding W. 2020 Early prediction of test case verdict with bag-of-words vs. word embeddings
S27 Couto L.D., Tran-J0rgensen P.W.V., Nilsson R.S., Larsen P.G. 2020 Enabling continuous integration in a formal methods setting
ИСПРАН, том 35, вып. 1, 2023 г., стр. 163-188
S28 Karakasis V., Manitaras T., Rusu V.H., Sarmiento-Pérez R., Bignamini C., Kraushaar M., Jocksch A., Omlin S., Peretti-Pezzi G., Augusto J.P.S.C., Friesen B., He Y., Gerhardt L., Cook B., You Z.-Q., Khuvis S., Tomko K. 2020 Enabling Continuous Testing of HPC Systems Using ReFrame
S29 Vassallo C., Proksch S., Zemp T., Gall H.C. 2020 Every build you break: developer-oriented assistance for build failure resolution
S30 Luzar A., Stanovnik S., Cankar M. 2020 Examination and comparison of tosca orchestration tools
S31 Meinicke J., Wong C.-P., Vasilescu B., Kästner C. 2020 Exploring differences and commonalities between feature flags and configuration options
S32 Demeyer S., Parsai A., Vercammen S., van Bladel B., Abdi M. 2020 Formal Verification of Developer Tests: A Research Agenda Inspired by Mutation Testing
S33 M. Mazkatli; D. Monschein; J. Grohmann; A. Koziolek 2020 Incremental Calibration of Architectural Performance Models with Parametric Dependencies
S34 Shin J.-S., Kim J. 2020 K-one playground: Reconfigurable clusters for a cloud-native testbed
S35 P. Batra; A. Jatain 2020 Measurement Based Performance Evaluation of DevOps
S36 Eismann S., Bezemer C.-P., Shang W., Okanovic D., Van Hoorn A. 2020 Microservices: A performance tester's dream or nightmare?
S37 van den Heuvel W.-J., Tamburri D.A. 2020 Model-driven ml-ops for intelligent enterprise applications: vision, approaches and challenges
S38 Shahin M., Babar M.A. 2020 On the role of software architecture in DevOps transformation: An industrial case study
S39 Mirhosseini S., Parnin C. 2020 Opunit: Sanity Checks for Computing Environments
S40 Gias A.U., Van Hoorn A., Zhu L., Casale G., Düllmann T.F., Wurster M. 2020 Performance engineering for microservices and serverless applications: The RADON approach
S41 J. Chen 2020 Performance Regression Detection in DevOps
S42 Raj P., Sinha P. 2020 Project management in era of agile and devops methodolgies
S43 Cheriyan A., Gondkar R.R., Babu S.S. 2020 Quality Assurance Practices and Techniques Used by QA Professional in Continuous Delivery
S44 M. Huang; W. Fan; W. Huang; Y. Cheng; H. Xiao 2020 Research on Building Exploitable Vulnerability Database for Cloud-Native App
S45 C. Fayollas; H. Bonnin; O. Flebus 2020 SafeOps: A Concept of Continuous Safety
S46 Vishnu Vardhan Reddy B.S., Swamy B.K., Sai S.P.S., Kiran K.V.D. 2020 Securing web application by using qualitative research methods for detection of vulnerabilities in any application of DevSecOps
S47 Petrovic N., Tosic M. 2020 SMADA-Fog: Semantic model driven approach to deployment and adaptivity in fog computing
S48 Orviz Fernández P., David M., Duma D.C., Ronchieri E., Gomes J., Salomoni D. 2020 Software Quality Assurance in INDIGO-DataCloud Project: a Converging Evolution of Software Engineering Practices to Support European Research e-Infrastructures
S49 Wang Y., Mäntylä M.V., Demeyer S., Wiklund K., Eldh S., Kairi T. 2020 Software test automation maturity: A survey of the state of the practice
S50 E. Bernard; F. Ambert; B. Legeard 2020 Supporting efficient test automation using lightweight MBT
S51 R. Li; X. Liu; X. Zheng; C. Zhang; H. Liu 2020 TDD4Fog: A Test-Driven Software Development Platform for Fog Computing Systems
S52 Y. Wang; M. Pyhäjärvi; M. V. Mäntylä 2020 Test Automation Process Improvement in a DevOps Team: Experience Report
S53 Hasan M.M., Bhuiyan F.A., Rahman A. 2020 Testing practices for infrastructure as code
S54 Marlowe T.J., Kirova V., Chang G. 2020 The state of agile: Changes in the world of change
S55 Klemets J., Storholmen T.C.B. 2020 Towards Super User-Centred Continuous Delivery: A Case Study
S56 Ding Z., Chen J., Shang W. 2020 Towards the use of the readily available tests from the release pipeline as performance tests. Are we there yet
1, 2023. pp. 163-188
S57 Leotta M., Cerioli M., Olianas D., Ricca F. 2020 Two experiments for evaluating the impact of Hamcrest and AssertJ on assertion development
S58 K. Gallaba; S. Mcintosh 2020 Use and Misuse of Continuous Integration Features: An Empirical Study of Projects That (Mis)Use Travis CI
S59 Y. Zhou; Y. Su; T. Chen; Z. Huang; H. C. Gall; S. Panichella 2020 User Review-Based Change File
S60 Yu L., Alégroth E., Chatzipetrou P., Gorschek T. 2020 Utilising CI environment for efficient and effective testing of NFRs
S61 Van Rossem S., Tavernier W., Colle D., Pickavet M., Demeester P. 2020 VNF Performance modelling: From stand-alone to chained topologies
S62 Bertolino, Antonia and Angelis, Guglielmo De and Guerriero, Antonio and Miranda, Breno and Pietrantuono, Roberto and Russo, Stefano 2019 DevOpRET: Continuous reliability testing in DevOps
S63 Jacobsen, Douglas M. and Kleinman, Randy and Longley, Harold 2019 Managing a Cray supercomputer as a git branch
S64 B. Meyers; K. Gadeyne; B. Oakes; M. Bernaerts; H. Vangheluwe; J. Denil 2019 A Model-Driven Engineering Framework to Support the Functional Safety Process
S65 F. Zampetti; G. Bavota; G. Canfora; M. D. Penta 2019 A Study on the Interplay between Pull Request Review and Continuous Integration Builds
S66 D. Chhillar; K. Sharma 2019 ACT Testbot and 4S Quality Metrics in XAAS Framework
S67 M. K. A. Abbass; R. I. E. Osman; A. M. H. Mohammed; M. W. A. Alshaikh 2019 Adopting Continuous Integeration and Continuous Delivery for Small Teams
S68 M. Guerriero; M. Garriga; D. A. Tamburri; F. Palomba 2019 Adoption, Support, and Challenges of Infrastructure-as-Code: Insights from Industry
S69 T. Durieux; R. Abreu; M. Monperrus; T. F. Bissyandé; L. Cruz 2019 An Analysis of 35+ Million Jobs of Travis CI
S70 T. Vasile; S. Cane; C. Bertram; F. Jakob 2019 Applying Security Concepts to Continuous Integration for the Purpose of Testing Embedded Systems
S71 C. Vassallo; S. Proksch; H. C. Gall; M. Di Penta 2019 Automated Reporting of Anti-Patterns and Decay in Continuous Integration
S72 A. Janes; B. Russo 2019 Automatic Performance Monitoring and Regression Testing During the Transition from Monolith to Microservices
S73 Krym T., Poniszewska-Marañda A., Markl E., Dupas R. 2019 Automatic Process of Continuous Integration of Web Application
S74 Najafi A., Rigby P.C., Shang W. 2019 Bisecting commits and modeling commit risk during testing
S75 D. A. Tomassi; N. Dmeiri; Y. Wang; A. Bhowmick; Y. Liu; P. T. Devanbu; B. Vasilescu; C. Rubio-González 2019 BugSwarm: Mining and Continuously Growing a Dataset of Reproducible Failures and Fixes
S76 Satyal S., Weber I., Paik H.-Y., Di Ciccio C., Mendling J. 2019 Business process improvement with the AB-BPM methodology
S77 R. K. Gupta; M. Venkatachalapathy; F. K. Jeberla 2019 Challenges in Adopting Continuous Delivery and DevOps in a Globally Distributed Product Team: A Case Study of a Healthcare Organization
S78 Judvaitis J., Nesenbergs K., Balass R., Greitans M. 2019 Challenges of DevOps ready IoT testbed
S79 Nogueira A.F., Sergeant E., Ribeiro J.C.B., Zenha-Rela M.A., Craske A. 2019 Collecting data from continuous practices: An infrastructure to support team development
S80 C. Singh; N. S. Gaba; M. Kaur; B. Kaur 2019 Comparison of Different CI/CD Tools Integrated with Cloud Platform
S81 I. M. A. Jawarneh; P. Bellavista; F. Bosi; L. Foschini; G. Martuscelli; R. Montanari; A. Palopoli 2019 Container Orchestration Engines: A Thorough Functional and Performance Comparison
ИСПРАН, том 35, вып. 1, 2023 г., стр. 163-188
S82 M. Grambow; F. Lehmann; D. Bermbach 2019 Continuous Benchmarking: Using System Benchmarking in Build Pipelines
S83 Glein R., Perloff A., Ulmer K. 2019 Continuous integration of FPGA designs for CMS
S84 W. Felidré; L. Furtado; D. A. da Costa; B. Cartaxo; G. Pinto 2019 Continuous Integration Theater
S85 Johanssen, JO; Kleebaum, A; Paech, B; Bruegge, B 2019 Continuous software engineering and its support by usage and decision knowledge: An interview study with practitioners
S86 L. G. Guçeilâ; D. Bratu; S. Moraru 2019 Continuous Testing in the Development of IoT Applications
S87 Lescisin M., Mahmoud Q.H., Cioraca A. 2019 Design and implementation of SFCI: A tool for security focused continuous integration
S88 O. Veres; N. Kunanets; V. Pasichnyk; N. Veretennikova; R. Korz; A. Leheza 2019 Development and Operations - the Modern Paradigm of the Work of IT Project Teams
S89 R. A. K. Jennings; G. Gannod 2019 DevOps - Preparing Students for Professional Practice
S90 C. Heistand; J. Thomas; N. Tzeng; A. R. Badger; L. M. Rodriguez; A. Dalton; J. Pai; A. Bodzas; D. Thompson 2019 DevOps for Spacecraft Flight Software
S91 L. Georgeta Guçeilâ; D. -V. Bratu; S. -A. Moraru 2019 DevOps Transformation for Multi-Cloud IoT Applications
S92 P. Agrawal; N. Rawat 2019 Devops, A New Approach To Cloud Development & Testing
S93 Embury S.M., Page C. 2019 Effect of continuous integration on build health in undergraduate team projects
S94 C. Vassallo 2019 Enabling Continuous Improvement of a Continuous Integration Process
S95 K. Baral; R. Mohod; J. Flamm; S. Goldrich; P. Ammann 2019 Evaluating a Test Automation Decision Support Tool
S96 H. Huijgens; E. Greuter; J. Brons; E. A. van Doorn; I. Papadopoulos; F. 2019 Factors Affecting Cloud Infra-Service Development Lead Times: A Case Study at ING
Morales Martinez; M. Aniche; O. Visser; A. van Deursen
S97 T. Suk; J. Hwang; M. F. Bulut; Z. Zeng 2019 Failure-Aware Application Placement Modeling and Optimization in High Turnover DevOps Environment
S98 Bezemer C.-P., Eismann S., Ferme V., Grohmann J., Heinrich R., Jamshidi P., Shang W., Van Hoorn A., Villavicencio M., Walter J., Willnecker F. 2019 How is performance addressed in DevOps? A survey on industrial practices
S99 B. Chen 2019 Improving the Software Logging Practices in DevOps
S100 S. Carturan; D. Goya 2019 Major Challenges of Systems-of-Systems with Cloud and DevOps ,Ai A Financial Experience Report
S101 J. A. Shah; D. Dubaria 2019 NetDevOps: A New Era Towards Networking DevOps
S102 J. Haavisto; M. Arif; L. LovV©n; T. LeppV §nen; J. Riekki 2019 Open-source RANs in Practice: an Over-The-Air Deployment for 5G MEC
S103 Keahey K., Anderson J., Ruth P., Colleran J., Hammock C., Stubbs J., Zhen Z. 2019 Operational lessons from chameleon
S104 K. Hakimzadeh; J. Dowling 2019 Ops-Scale: Scalable and Elastic Cloud Operations by a Functional Abstraction and Feedback Loops
S105 E. Salinas 2019 Pat Helland on Failure and Resilience in Distributed Systems
S106 Al-Sabbagh K.W., Staron M., Hebig R., Meding W. 2019 Predicting test case verdicts using textual analysis of committed code churns
S107 A. Nuriddinov; W. Tavernier; D. Colle; M. Pickavet; M. Peustery; S. Schneidery 2019 Reproducible Functional Tests for Multi-scale Network Services
S108 Wiedemann A., Forsgren N., Wiesche M., Gewald H., Krcmar H. 2019 Research for practice: The Devops phenomenon
1, 2023. pp. 163-188
S109 P. K. Sidhu; G. Mussbacher; S. McIntosh 2019 Reuse (or Lack Thereof) in Travis CI Specifications: An Empirical Study of CI Phases and Commands
S110 Mäkinen S., Puonti M., Lehtonen T., Mikkonen T., Kilamo T., Männistö T. 2019 Revisiting continuous deployment maturity: A two-year perspective
S111 Siewruk G., Mazurczyk W., Karpiñski A. 2019 Security assurance in Devops methodologies and related environments
S112 Vera-Rivera F.H., Vera-Rivera J.L., Gaona-Cuevas C.M. 2019 Sinplafut: A microservices - Based application for soccer training
S113 S. M. Naik; M. Fernandes; G. Pushpakumar; R. Pathak 2019 Smart Grid Communication Protocol Test Automation along with Protection Test Automation
S114 Risdianto A.C., Usman M., Kim J.W. 2019 SmartX box: Virtualized hyper-converged resources for building an affordable playground
S115 K. Czarnecki 2019 Software Engineering for Automated Vehicles: Addressing the Needs of Cars That Run on Software and Data
S116 Keskin Kaynak I., Çilden E., Aydin S. 2019 Software Quality Improvement Practices in Continuous Integration
S117 Cunningham S., Gambo J., Lawless A., Moore D., Yilmaz M., Clarke P.M., O'Connor R.V. 2019 Software Testing: A Changing Career
S118 Rahman A., Williams L. 2019 Source code properties of defective infrastructure as code scripts
S119 Kapoor S., Sagar K., Reddy B.V.R. 2019 Speedroid: A novel automation testing tool for mobile apps
S120 Arulkumar V., Lathamanju R. 2019 Start to Finish Automation Achieve on Cloud with Build Channel: By DevOps Method
S121 Figalist I., Biesdorf A., Brand C., Feld S., Kiermeier M. 2019 Supporting the DevOps Feedback Loop using Unsupervised Machine Learning
S122 G. Lim; M. Ham; J. Moon; W. Song; S. Woo; S. Oh 2019 TAOS-CI: Lightweight Modular Continuous Integration System for Edge Computing
S123 Cruzes D.S., Melsnes K., Marczak S. 2019 Testing in a DevOps Era: Perceptions of Testers in Norwegian Organisations
S124 D. Martin; S. Panichella 2019 The Cloudification Perspectives of Search-Based Software Testing
S125 Fazayeli H., Syed-Mohamad S.M., Md Akhir N.S. 2019 Towards auto-labelling issue reports for pull-based software development using text mining approach
S126 Meixner K., Winkler D., Biffl S. 2019 Towards combined process & tool variability management in software testing
S127 R. Pietrantuono; A. Bertolino; G. De Angelis; B. Miranda; S. Russo 2019 Towards Continuous Software Reliability Testing in DevOps
S128 F. Giorgi; F. Paulisch 2019 Transition Towards Continuous Delivery in the Healthcare Domain
S129 C. Paule; T. F. Düllmann; A. Van Hoorn 2019 Vulnerabilities in Continuous Delivery Pipelines? A Case Study
S130 M. Chwalisz; K. Geissdoerfer; A. Wolisz 2019 Walker: DevOps Inspired Workflow for Experimentation
S131 B. Benni; M. Blay-Fornarino; S. Mosser; F. Précisio; G. Jungbluth 2019 When DevOps Meets Meta-Learning: A Portfolio to Rule them all
S132 Daoudagh, Said and Lonetti, Francesca and Marchetti, Eda 2019 An automated framework for continuous development and testing of access control systems
S133 Luz, Welder Pinheiro and Pinto, Gustavo and Bonifacio, Rodrigo 2018 Building a Collaborative Culture: A Grounded Theory of Well Succeeded Devops Adoption in Practice
S134 Osses, Felipe and Márquez, Gastón and Astudillo, Hernán 2018 Exploration of Academic and Industrial Evidence about Architectural Tactics and Patterns in Microservices
S135 Schulz, Henning and Angerstein, Tobias and van Hoorn, André 2018 Towards Automating Representative Load Testing in Continuous Software Engineering
S136 K. Kuusinen; V. Balakumar; S. C. Jepsen; S. H. Larsen; T. A. Lemqvist; A. Muric; A. 0. Nielsen; O. Vestergaard 2018 A Large Agile Organization on Its Journey Towards DevOps
S137
Sandobalin J.
2018
A Model-Driven Approach to Continuous Delivery of Cloud Resources
S138
Sandobalin J., Insfran E., Abrahao S.
2018
A smart provisioning approach to cloud infrastructure
A spoonful of DevOps helps the GI go down
S139 Baudry B., Harrand N., Schulte E., Timperley C., Tan S.H., Selakovic M., Ugherughe E.
2018
S140
J. Shah; D. Dubaria; J. Widhalm
2018
A Survey of DevOps tools for Networking
S141
H. Li; T. Chen; A. E. Hassan; M Nasser; P. Flora
2018
Adopting Autonomic Computing Capabilities in Existing Large-Scale Systems
S142
Zykov S.V.
2018
Agile services
S143
Akman S., Aksuyek E.B., Kaynak O.
2018
ALM Tool Infrastructure with a Focus on DevOps Culture
S144
Wiedemann A., Wiesche M.
2018
Are you ready for Devops? Required skill set for Devops teams
S145
I. Rubasinghe; D. Meedeniya; I. Perera
2018
Automated Inter-artefact Traceability Establishment for DevOps Practice
S146
R. V. Rosa; C. E. Rothenberg
2018
Automated VNF Testing with Gym: A Benchmarking Use Case
S147 V. Debroy; L. Brimble; M. Yost; A. Erry
2018
Automating Web Application Testing from the Ground Up: Experiences and Lessons Learned in an Industrial Setting
S148
M. J. Kargar; A. Hanifizade
2018
Automation of regression test in microservice architecture
S149
V. Mohan; L. ben Othmane; A. Kres
2018
BP: Security Concerns and Best Practices for Automation of Software Deployment Processes: An Industrial Case Study
S150
A. Rahman; L. Williams
2018
Characterizing Defective Configuration Scripts Used for Continuous Deployment
S151
Rahman A., Agrawal A., Krishna R., Sobran A.
2018
Characterizing the influence of continuous integration: Empirical results from 250+ open source and proprietary projects
S152 A. Agarwal; S. Gupta; T. Choudhury_
2018
Continuous and Integrated Software Development using DevOps
S153
X. Bai; M. Li; D. Pei; S. Li; D. Ye
2018
Continuous Delivery of Personalized Assessment and Feedback in Agile Software Engineering Projects
S154
S. A. I. B. S. Arachchi; I. Perera
2018
Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery Pipeline Automation for Agile Software Project Management
S155
L. Williams
2018
Continuously Integrating Security
S156 Alshahwan N., Gao X., Harman M., Jia Y., Mao K., Mols A., Tei T., Zorin I.
2018
Deploying search based software engineering with sapienz at facebook
S157
Marijan D., Sen S.
2018
Devops enhancement with continuous test optimization
S158
D. Marijan; M. Liaaen; S. Sen
2018
DevOps Improvements for Reduced Cycle Times with Integrated Test Optimizations for Continuous Integration
S159
Angara J., Gutta S., Prasad S.
2018
DevOps with continuous testing architecture and its metrics model
S160
Park S., Huh J.-H.
2018
Effect of cooperation on manufacturing IT project development an for successful industry 4.0 Project: Safety management for security_
S161
Mârtensson T., Stähl D., Bosch J.
2018
Enable more frequent integration of software in industry projects
S162
Casale G., Li C.
2018
Enhancing Big Data Application Design with the DICE Framework
S163
T. F. Düllmann; C. Paule; A. van Hoorn
2018
Exploiting DevOps Practices for Dependable and Secure Continuous Delivery Pipelines
S164
Loseva E., Obeid A., Richter H. Backes R., Eichhorn D.
2018
FIXIT - A semi-automatic software deployment tool for arbitrary targets
S165
Jiang H., Chen X., He T., Chen Z. Li X.
2018
Fuzzy clustering of crowdsourced test reports for apps
S166
D. Widder; B. Vasilescu; M. Hilton; C. Kästner
2018
I'm Leaving You, Travis: A Continuous Integration Breakup Story_
S167 Fernandes, TCM; Costa, I;
Salvetti, N; de Magalhaes, FLF; Fernandes, AA
2018
Influence of DevOps practices in IT management processes according to the COBIT 5 model
1, 2023. pp. 163-188
S168 Soenen T., van Rossem S., Tavernier W., Vicens F., Valocchi D., Trakadas P., Karkazis P., Xilouris G., Eardley P., Kolometsos S., Kourtis M.-A., Guija D., Siddiqui S., Hasselmeyer P., Bonnet J., Lopez D. 2018 Insights from SONATA: Implementing and integrating a microservice-based NFV service platform with a DevOps methodology
S169 S. van Rossem; W. Tavernier; D. Colle; M. Pickavet; P. Demeester 2018 Introducing Development Features for Virtualized Network Services
S170 Asha N., Mani P. 2018 Knowledge-based acceptance test driven agile approach for quality software development
S171 F. L. Eickhoff; M. L. McGrath; C. Mayer; A. Bieswanger; P. A. Wojciak 2018 Large-scale application of IBM Design Thinking and Agile development for IBM z14
S172 Staron M., Meding W., Söder O., Bäck M. 2018 Measurement and Impact Factors of Speed of Reviews and Integration in Continuous Software Engineering
S173 L. Chen 2018 Microservices: Architecting for Continuous Delivery and DevOps
S174 H. Alipour; Y. Liu 2018 Model Driven Deployment of Auto-Scaling Services on Multiple Clouds
S175 M. Wurster; U. Breitenbücher; O. Kopp; F. Leymann 2018 Modeling and Automated Execution of Application Deployment Tests
S176 D'Ambrogio A., Falcone A., Garro A., Giglio A. 2018 On the importance of simulation in enabling continuous delivery and evaluating deployment pipeline performance
S177 Zhang Y., Vasilescu B., Wang H., Filkov V. 2018 One size does not fit all: An empirical study of containerized continuous deployment workflows
S178 A. Cheriyan; R. R. Gondkar; T. Gopal; S. B. S. 2018 Quality Assurance Practices in Continuous Delivery - an implementation in Big Data Domain
S179 R. Mijumbi; K. Okumoto; A. Asthana; J. Meekel 2018 Recent Advances in Software Reliability Assurance
S180 Kerzazi N., EL Asri I. 2018 Release engineering: From structural to functional view
S181 G. Marquez; F. Osses; H. Astudillo 2018 Review of Architectural Patterns and Tactics for Microservices in Academic and Industrial Literature
S182 Satyal S., Weber I., Paik H.-Y., Di Ciccio C., Mendling J. 2018 Shadow Testing for Business Process Improvement
S183 Limoncelli T.A. 2018 SQL is no excuse to avoid DevOps
S184 P. Zimmerer 2018 Strategy for Continuous Testing in iDevOps
S185 K. K. Luhana; C. Schindler; W. Slany 2018 Streamlining mobile app deployment with Jenkins and Fastlane in the case of Catrobat's pocket code
S186 X. Bai; D. Pei; M. Li; S. Li 2018 The DevOps Lab Platform for Managing Diversified Projects in Educating Agile Software Engineering
S187 Guamán D., Pérez J., Díaz J. 2018 Towards a (semi)-automatic reference process to support the reverse engineering and reconstruction of software architectures
S188 K. Martin; U. Ömer; M. Florian 2018 Towards a Continuous Feedback Loop for Service-Oriented Environments
S189 Steffens A., Lichter H., Moscher M. 2018 Towards data-driven continuous compliance testing
S190 F. Klinaku; V. Ferme 2018 Towards Generating Elastic Microservices: A Declarative Specification for Consistent Elasticity Configurations
S191 M. Peuster; H. Karl 2018 Understand Your Chains and Keep Your Deadlines: Introducing Timeconstrained Profiling for NFV
S192 Kim C., Kim S., Kim J. 2018 Understanding automated continuous integration for containerized smart energy IoT-cloud service
S193 B. Snyder; B. Curtis 2018 Using Analytics to Guide Improvement during an Agile,AiDevOps Transformation
S194 Schermann G., Cito J., Leitner P., Zdun U., Gall H.C. 2018 We're doing it live: A multi-method empirical study on continuous experimentation
S195 Pinto G., Castor F., Bonifacio R., Reboujas M. 2018 Work practices and challenges in continuous integration: A survey with Travis CI users
ИСПРАН, том 35, вып. 1, 2023 г., стр. 163-188
S196 Fabian Fagerholm and Alejandro {Sanchez Guinea} and Hanna Mäenpää and Jürgen Münch 2017 The RIGHT model for Continuous Experimentation
S197 Ferme, Vincenzo and Pautasso, Cesare 2017 Towards Holistic Continuous Software Performance Assessment
S198 B. P. Eddy; N. Wilde; N. A. Cooper; B. Mishra; V. S. Gamboa; K. M. Shah; A. M. Deleon; N. A. Shields 2017 A Pilot Study on Introducing Continuous Integration and Delivery into Undergraduate Software Engineering Courses
S199 C. Vassallo; G. Schermann; F. Zampetti; D. Romano; P. Leitner; A. Zaidman; M. Di Penta; S. Panichella 2017 A Tale of CI Build Failures: An Open Source and a Financial Organization Perspective
S200 A. J. Younge; K. Pedretti; R. E. Grant; R. Brightwell 2017 A Tale of Two Systems: Using Containers to Deploy HPC Applications on Supercomputers and Clouds
S201 S. Wongkampoo; S. Kiattisin 2017 Atom-Task Precondition Technique to Optimize Large Scale GUI Testing Time based on Parallel Scheduling Algorithm
S202 Wu C.-F.E., Burugula R.S., Yu H., Dubey N., Jann J., Nguyen M. 2017 Automation of cloud node installation for testing and scalable provisioning
S203 M. Shahin; M. A. Babar; M. Zahedi; L. Zhu 2017 Beyond Continuous Delivery: An Empirical Investigation of Continuous Deployment Challenges
S204 T. T. Brooks 2017 Big Data Complex Event Processing for Internet of Things Provenance: Benefits for Audit, Forensics, and Safety
S205 Stahl D., Bosch J. 2017 Cinders: The continuous integration and delivery architecture framework
S206 Wettinger J., Breitenbücher U., Falkenthal M., Leymann F. 2017 Collaborative gathering and continuous delivery of DevOps solutions through repositories
S207 C. H. Kao 2017 Continuous evaluation for application development on cloud computing environments
S208 D. Stahl; T. Martensson; J. Bosch 2017 Continuous practices and devops: beyond the buzz, what does it all mean?
S209 Fitzgerald B., Stol K.-J. 2017 Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda
S210 Metzger S., Durden D., Sturtevant C., Luo H., Pingintha-Durden N., Sachs T., Serafimovich A., Hartmann J., Li J., Xu K., Desai A.R. 2017 Eddy4R 0.2.0: A DevOps model for community-extensible processing and analysis of eddy-covariance data based on R, Git, Docker, and HDF5
S211 J. A. Kupsch; B. P. Miller; V. Basupalli; J. Burger 2017 From continuous integration to continuous assurance
S212 P. Perera; R. Silva; I. Perera 2017 Improve software quality through practicing DevOps
S213 S. Vost; S. Wagner 2017 Keeping Continuous Deliveries Safe
S214 Zimmermann, O 2017 Microservices tenets: Agile approach to service development and deployment
S215 Chung S. 2017 Object-oriented programming with DevOps
S216 Heinrich R., Van Hoorn A., Knoche H., Li F., Lwakatare L.E., Pahl C., Schulte S., Wettinger J. 2017 Performance engineering for microservices: Research challenges & directions
S217 Haili W., Renbin G., Congbin W., Lei G. 2017 Research and application of development model of information service for IOT of oil and gas production based on cloud architecture
S218 Z. Farahmandpour; S. Versteeg; J. Han; A. Kameswaran 2017 Service Virtualisation of Internet-of-Things Devices: Techniques and Challenges
S219 Bucena I., Kirikova M. 2017 Simplifying the devops adoption process
S220 A. van Deursen 2017 Software engineering without borders
S221 D. Spinellis 2017 State-of-the-Art Software Testing
S222 Martensson T., Stahl D., Bosch J. 2017 The EMFIS model - Enable more frequent integration of software
S223 Y. Zhao; A. Serebrenik; Y. Zhou; V. Filkov; B. Vasilescu 2017 The impact of continuous integration on other software development practices: A large-scale empirical study
1, 2023. pp. 163-188
S224 C. Parnin; E. Helms; C. Atlee; H. Boughton; M. Ghattas; A. Glover; J. Holman; J. Micco; B. Murphy; T. Savor; M. Stumm; S. Whitaker; L. Williams 2017 The Top 10 Adages in Continuous Deployment
S225 S. Palihawadana; C. H. Wijeweera; M. G. T. N. Sanjitha; V. K. Liyanage; I. Perera; D. A. Meedeniya 2017 Tool support for traceability management of software artefacts with DevOps practices
S226 E. Laukkanen; M. Paasivaara; J. Itkonen; C. Lassenius; T. Arvonen 2017 Towards Continuous Delivery by Reducing the Feature Freeze Period: A Case Study
S227 D. Ameller; C. FarrV©; X. Franch; D. Valerio; A. Cassarino 2017 Towards continuous software release planning
S228 C. Duffau; B. Grabiec; M. BlayFornarino 2017 Towards Embedded System Agile Development Challenging Verification, Validation and Accreditation: Application in a Healthcare Company
S229 Nidagundi P., Novickis L. 2017 Towards utilization of lean canvas in the devops software
S230 Hilton M., Nelson N., Tunnell T., Marinov D., Dig D. 2017 Trade-offs in continuous integration: Assurance, security, and flexibility
S231 Morris D., Voutsinas S., Hambly N.C., Mann R.G. 2017 Use of Docker for deployment and testing of astronomy software
S232 M. Zhao; F. Le Gall; P. Cousin; R. Vilalta; R. MuV±oz; S. Castro; M. Peuster; S. Schneider; M. Siapera; E. Kapassa; D. Kyriazis; P. Hasselmeyer; G. Xilouris; C. Tranoris; S. Denazis; J. Martrat 2017 Verification and validation framework for 5G network services and apps
S233 Ur Rahman, Akond Ashfaque and Williams, Laurie 2016 Security Practices in DevOps
S234 F. Calefato; F. Lanubile 2016 A Hub-and-Spoke Model for Tool Integration in Distributed Development
S235 Di Nitto E., Jamshidi P., Guerriero M., Spais I., Tamburri D.A. 2016 A software architecture framework for quality-aware devops
S236 Hanappi O., Hummer W., Dustdar S. 2016 Asserting reliable convergence for configuration management scripts
S237 J. Bae; C. Kim; J. Kim 2016 Automated deployment of SmartX IoT-cloud services based on continuous integration
S238 Makki M., Van D., Joosen L.W. 2016 Automated workflow regression testing for multi-tenant SaaS: Integrated support in self-service configuration dashboard
S239 Schermann G., Schöni D., Leitner P., Gall H.C. 2016 Bifrost: Supporting continuous deployment with automated enactment of multi-phase live testing strategies
S240 Risdianto A.C., Shin J., Kim J. 2016 Building and operating distributed SDN-cloud testbed with hyper-convergent smartx boxes
S241 D. Liu; H. Zhu; C. Xu; I. Bayley; D. Lightfoot; M. Green; P. Marshall 2016 CIDE: An Integrated Development Environment for Microservices
S242 C. Vassallo; F. Zampetti; D. Romano; M. Beller; A. Panichella; M. Di Penta; A. Zaidman 2016 Continuous Delivery Practices in a Large Financial Organization
S243 T. Savor; M. Douglas; M. Gentili; L. Williams; K. Beck; M. Stumm 2016 Continuous Deployment at Facebook and OANDA
S244 Rossi C., Shibley E., Su S., Beck K., Savor T., Stumm M. 2016 Continuous deployment of mobile software at facebook (showcase)
S245 C. Pang; A. Hindle 2016 Continuous Maintenance
S246 M. Staples; L. Zhu; J. Grundy 2016 Continuous Validation for Data Analytics Systems
S247 Hadar E., Hadar I. 2016 CURA: Complex-system Unified reference architecture position paper: A practitioner view
S248 Riungu-Kalliosaari L., Mäkinen S., Lwakatare L.E., Tiihonen J., Männistö T. 2016 DevOps adoption benefits and challenges in practice: A case study
ИСПРАН, том 35, вып. 1, 2023 г., стр. 163-188
S249 Colavita F. 2016 Devops movement of enterprise agile breakdown silos, create collaboration, increase quality, and application speed
S250 M. Callanan; A. Spillane 2016 DevOps: Making It Easy to Do the Right Thing
S251 Sheridan C., Whigham D., Artac M. 2016 DICE fault injection tool
S252 Amith Raj MP; A. Kumar; S. J. Pai; A. Gopal 2016 Enhancing security of Docker using Linux hardening techniques
S253 M. T. Rahman; L. Querel; P. C. Rigby; B. Adams 2016 Feature Toggles: Practitioner Practices and a Case Study
S254 Mäkinen S., Leppänen M., Kilamo T., Mattila A.-L., Laukkanen E., Pagels M., Männistö T. 2016 Improving the delivery cycle: A multiple-case study of the toolchains in Finnish software intensive enterprises
S255 Jones S., Noppen J., Lettice F. 2016 Management challenges for devops adoption within UK SMEs
S256 Artac M., Borovsak T., Di Nitto E., Guerriero M., Tamburri D.A. 2016 Model-Driven continuous deployment for quality devops
S257 B. Adams; S. McIntosh 2016 Modern Release Engineering in a Nutshell -- Why Researchers Should Care
S258 Kroß J., Willnecker F., Zwickl T., Krcmar H. 2016 PET: Continuous performance evaluation tool
S259 Ohtsuki M., Ohta K., Kakeshita T. 2016 Software engineer education support system ALECSS utilizing devOps tools
S260 A. A. U. Rahman; L. Williams 2016 Software Security in DevOps: Synthesizing Practitioners,Áó Perceptions and Practices
S261 Cito J., Mazlami G., Leitner P. 2016 TemPerf: Temporal correlation between performance metrics and source code
S262 Shahin M., Babar M.A., Zhu L. 2016 The Intersection of Continuous Deployment and Architecting Process: Practitioners' Perspectives
S263 R. Punjabi; R. Bajaj 2016 User stories to user reality: A DevOps approach for the cloud
S264 Gottesheim, Wolfgang 2015 Challenges, Benefits and Best Practices of Performance Focused DevOps
S265 Shtern, Mark and Simmons, Bradley and Smit, Michael and Lu, Hongbin and Litoiu, Marin 2015 Performance Management and Monitoring
S266 Stillwell M., Coutinho J.G.F. 2015 A DevOps approach to integration of software components in an EU research project
S267 E. Salant; P. Leitner; K. Wallbom; J. Ahtes 2015 A framework for a cost-efficient cloud ecosystem
S268 D. Bruneo; F. Longo; G. Merlino; N. Peditto; C. Romeo; F. Verboso; A. Puliafito 2015 A Modular Approach to Collaborative Development in an OpenStack Testbed
S269 Rajagopalan S., Jamjoom H. 2015 App-Bisect: Autonomous healing for microservice-based apps
S270 H. Chen; R. Kazman; S. Haziyev; V. Kropov; D. Chtchourov 2015 Architectural Support for DevOps in a Neo-Metropolis BDaaS Platform
S271 Scheuner J., Cito J., Leitner P., Gall H. 2015 Cloud workBench: Benchmarking IaaS providers based on infrastructure-ascode
S272 S. Gebert; C. Schwartz; T. Zinner; P. Tran-Gia 2015 Continuously delivering your network
S273 Lehtonen T., Suonsyrjä S., Kilamo T., Mikkonen T. 2015 Defining metrics for continuous delivery and deployment pipeline
S274 D. Bruneo; F. Longo; G. Merlino; N. Peditto; C. Romeo; F. Verboso; A. Puliafito 2015 Enabling Collaborative Development in an OpenStack Testbed: The CloudWave Use Case
S275 Wettinger J., Andrikopoulos V., Leymann F. 2015 Enabling devops collaboration and continuous delivery using diverse application environments
S276 M. Soni 2015 End to End Automation on Cloud with Build Pipeline: The Case for DevOps in Insurance Industry, Continuous Integration, Continuous Testing, and Continuous Delivery
S277 Segall I., Tzoref-Brill R. 2015 Feedback-driven combinatorial test design and execution
S278 Vasilescu B., Yu Y., Wang H., Devanbu P., Filkov V. 2015 Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub
1, 2023. pp. 163-188
S279 M. de Bayser; L. G. Azevedo; R. Cerqueira 2015 ResearchOps: The case for DevOps in scientific applications
S280 E. Laukkanen; M. Paasivaara; T. Arvonen 2015 Stakeholder Perceptions of the Adoption of Continuous Integration-A Case Study
S281 A. A. U. Rahman; E. Helms; L. Williams; C. Parnin 2015 Synthesizing Continuous Deployment Practices Used in Software Development
S282 N. Rathod; A. Surve 2015 Test orchestration a framework for Continuous Integration and Continuous deployment
S283 A. Wahaballa; O. Wahballa; M. Abdellatief; H. Xiong; Z. Qin 2015 Toward unified DevOps model
S284 M. Virmani 2015 Understanding DevOps & bridging the gap from continuous integration to continuous delivery
S285 Chen J., Xu X., Osterweil L.J., Zhu L., Brun Y., Bass L., Xiao J., Li M., Wang Q. 2015 Using simulation to evaluate error detection strategies: A case study of cloudbased deployment processes
S286 J. Engblom 2015 Virtual to the (near) end: Using virtual platforms for continuous integration
S287 B. S. Farroha; D. L. Farroha 2014 A Framework for Managing Mission Needs, Compliance, and Trust in the DevOps Environment
S288 S. Harrer; C. RVöck; G. Wirtz 2014 Automated and Isolated Tests for Complex Middleware Products: The Case of BPEL Engines
S289 Fitzgerald B., Stol K. 2014 Continuous software engineering and beyond: Trends and challenges
S290 C. A. Cois; J. Yankel; A. Connell 2014 Modern DevOps: Optimizing software development through effective system interactions
S291 S. A. Wright; D. Druta 2014 Open source and standards: The role of open source in the dialogue between research and standardization
S292 S. W. Hussaini 2014 Stenghemghamonizlfa^ though sytmsappoahi
S293 S. Bellomo; N. Ernst; R. Nord; R. Kazman 2014 Toward Design Decisions to Enable Deployability: Empirical Study of Three Projects Reaching for the Continuous Delivery Holy Grail
S294 Erculiani F., Abeni L., Palopoli L. 2014 UBuild: Automated testing and performance evaluation of embedded linux systems
S295 S. Neely; S. Stolt 2013 Continuous Delivery? Easy! Just Change Everything (Well, Maybe It Is Not That Easy)
S296 Schaefer A., Reichenbach M., Fey D. 2013 Continuous integration and automation for DevOps
S297 D. G. Feitelson; E. Frachtenberg; K. L. Beck 2013 Development and Deployment at Facebook
S298 S. Meyer; P. Healy; T. Lynn; J. Morrison 2013 Quality Assurance for Open Source Software Configuration Management
Information about authors / Информация об авторах
Brian PANDO, Computer and Systems Engineer. Research interests: Software Engineering, Web Development, Software Development.
Брайан ПАНДО, компьютерный и системный инженер. Научные интересы: программная инженерия, веб-разработка, разработка программного обеспечения.
Abraham DÄVILA is a Principal Professor of the Computer Engineering program and is a Doctoral Candidate in Software Engineering, in the field of process improvement. Field of scientific interests: Software engineering, Software quality process, Software quality product, Education in software engineering, Innovations based on software.
Авраам ДАВИЛА - профессор программы компьютерной инженерии и докторант в области программной инженерии. Область научных интересов: программная инженерия, процесс качества программного обеспечения, образование в области программной инженерии, инновации на основе программного обеспечения.
