Declarative Performance Testing Automation - Automating Performance Testing for the DevOps Era

1. Uni versi tà del l a Svi zzera i tal i ana Software Institute Declarative Performance Testing Automation Vincenzo Ferme Committee Members:  Internal: Prof. Walter Binder, Prof. Mauro Pezzè  External: Prof. Lionel Briand, Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Frank Leyman Research Advisor: Prof. Cesare Pautasso Automating Performance Testing for the DevOps Era

2. 2 Outline ‣ Context

3. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering

4. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering ‣ Problem Statement & Research Goals

5. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering ‣ Problem Statement & Research Goals ‣ Main Contributions

6. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering ‣ Problem Statement & Research Goals ‣ Main Contributions ‣ Evaluations & Overview of Case Studies

7. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering ‣ Problem Statement & Research Goals ‣ Main Contributions ‣ Evaluations & Overview of Case Studies ‣ Open Challenges

8. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering ‣ Problem Statement & Research Goals ‣ Main Contributions ‣ Evaluations & Overview of Case Studies ‣ Open Challenges ‣ Career and Contributions

9. 2 Outline ‣ Context ‣ State of the Art & Declarative Performance Engineering ‣ Problem Statement & Research Goals ‣ Main Contributions ‣ Evaluations & Overview of Case Studies ‣ Open Challenges ‣ Career and Contributions ‣ Concluding Remarks and Highlights

10. Context 3

11. 4 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps !4 CI Server Repo Developers, Testers, Architects Production CD Server C.S.D .L.

12. 5 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps How often do you check in code? [CNCF Survey 2020] Cumulative growth in commits by quarter (Q1 2015-Q4 2019) The majority of respondents (53%) check in code multiple tim How often are your release cycles?

15. How often do you check in code? [CNCF Survey 2020] Cumulative growth in commits by quarter (Q1 2015-Q4 2019) The majority of respondents (53%) check in code multiple tim How often are your release cycles? 6 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Containers 92%

16. 7 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Time to Market !7

17. 7 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Time to Market !7 Fast feedback-loop

18. 7 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Time to Market !7 Fast feedback-loop Scalability and Availability

19. 7 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Time to Market !7 Fast feedback-loop Scalability and Availability Fewer Production Errors

20. 8 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Match Performance Requirements

21. 8 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Scalability and Availability Match Performance Requirements

22. 8 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps Scalability and Availability 3rd Party Performance Match Performance Requirements

23. 9 Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps CI Server Repo Developers, Testers, Architects Continuous Changes Continuous Test Execution “Only conducting performance testing at the conclusion of system or functional testing is like conducting a diagnostic blood test on a patient who is already dead. ” Scott Barber

24. 10 State of the Art Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering Performance Testing is Rarely Applied in DevOps Processes [Bezemer et al., ICPE 2019] [Bezemer et al., ICPE 2019] Bezemer, C.-P., Eismann, S., Ferme, V., Grohmann, J., Heinrich, R., Jamshidi, P., Shang, W., van Hoorn, A., Villavicencio, M.,Walter, J., and Willnecker, F. (2019). How is Performance Addressed in DevOps? In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE), pages 45–50.

25. 11 State of the Art Complexity of Def. and Exec. [Streitz et al., 2018][Leitner and Bezemer, 2017] Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering

26. 11 State of the Art Complexity of Def. and Exec. [Streitz et al., 2018][Leitner and Bezemer, 2017] [Brunnert et al., 2015] Slowness of Execution Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering

27. 11 State of the Art Complexity of Def. and Exec. [Streitz et al., 2018][Leitner and Bezemer, 2017] [Brunnert et al., 2015] Slowness of Execution Lack of Native Support for CI/CD Tools [Leitner and Bezemer, 2017] Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering

28. 12 Declarative Performance Engineering “ Enabling the performance analyst to declaratively specify what performance- relevant questions need to be answered without being concerned about how they should be answered. ” [Walter et al., 2016] [Walter et al., 2016] Jürgen Walter, André van Hoorn, Heiko Koziolek, Dusan Okanovic, and Samuel Kounev. Asking ”What”?, Automating the ”How”? -TheVision of Declarative Performance Engineering. In Proc. of ICPE 2016. 91–94.

29. 12 Declarative Performance Engineering “ Enabling the performance analyst to declaratively specify what performance- relevant questions need to be answered without being concerned about how they should be answered. ” [Ferme and Pautasso, ICPE 2018] Ferme, V. and Pautasso, C. (2018). A Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution in Continuous Software Development Environments. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE), pages 261–272. [Walter et al., 2016] Developers, Testers, Architects, Performance Analyst … [Ferme and Pautasso, ICPE 2018] [Walter et al., 2016] Jürgen Walter, André van Hoorn, Heiko Koziolek, Dusan Okanovic, and Samuel Kounev. Asking ”What”?, Automating the ”How”? -TheVision of Declarative Performance Engineering. In Proc. of ICPE 2016. 91–94.

30. 13 State of the Art [Walter, 2018] DECLARE Proposes languages and tools for specifying performance concerns, and declaratively querying performance knowledge collected and modelled by different tools, with the objective of providing automated answers to the specified performance concerns. Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering

31. 14 State of the Art [Schulz et al., 2020] ContinuITy Focuses on dealing with the challenges of continuously updating performance tests, by leveraging performance knowledge of software systems collected and modelled from the software operating in production environments. Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering

32. 14 State of the Art [Schulz et al., 2020] ContinuITy Focuses on dealing with the challenges of continuously updating performance tests, by leveraging performance knowledge of software systems collected and modelled from the software operating in production environments. [Avritzer et al., 2020] [Okanovic et al., 2020] [Schulz et al., 2019] Perf. Testing and DevOps ➤ Declarative Perf. Engineering

33. Problem Statement & Research Goals 15

34. 16 Problem Statement To design new methods and techniques for the declarative specification of performance tests and their automation processes, and to provide models and frameworks enabling continuous and automated execution of performance tests, in particular referring to the target systems, target users and context of our work.

35. 17 Research Goals R.G. 1 (Which Tests?)

36. 17 Research Goals R.G. 1 (Which Tests?) R.G. 2 (How to Specify?)

37. 17 Research Goals R.G. 1 (Which Tests?) R.G. 2 (How to Specify?) R.G. 3 (How to Automate?)

38. 17 Research Goals R.G. 1 (Which Tests?) R.G. 2 (How to Specify?) R.G. 3 (How to Automate?) R.G. 4 (How to CSDL?)

39. Main Contributions 18

40. 19 Main Contributions Overall Contribution ➤ Main Contributions Overview A Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation enabling the continuous and automated execution of performance tests alongside the Continuous Software Development Lifecycle, and embrace DevOps goals by enabling the end-to-end execution of service-level performance tests, including S.U.T. lifecycle management.

41. 20 Main Contributions Overall Contribution ➤ Main Contributions Overview Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog

42. 20 Main Contributions Overall Contribution ➤ Main Contributions Overview BenchFlow Declarative DSL BenchFlowTest version: TestVersion name: String description: Option<String> workloads: Map<String, Workload> labels: Option<String> «abstract» Workload popularity: Option<Percent> Sut name: String type: Option<SutType> services_configuration: Option<Map<String, ServiceConfigurations>> Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» TestVersion 1 1.1 2 3 BenchFlowTestConfiguration configuration 1 sut 1 workload_name 1..N DataCollection only_declared: Boolean services: Option<Map<String, ServerSideConfiguration>> workloads: Option<Map<String, ClientSideConfiguration>> data_collection 0..1 goal 1 LoadFunction users: Option<Int> ramp_up: Time steady_state: Time ramp_down: Time load_function 1 TerminationCriteria +test: TestTerminationCriterion +experiment: ExperimentTerminationCriterion termination_criteria 0..1 QualityGates quality_gates 0..1 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog

43. 20 Main Contributions Overall Contribution ➤ Main Contributions Overview BenchFlow Declarative DSL BenchFlowTest version: TestVersion name: String description: Option<String> workloads: Map<String, Workload> labels: Option<String> «abstract» Workload popularity: Option<Percent> Sut name: String type: Option<SutType> services_configuration: Option<Map<String, ServiceConfigurations>> Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» TestVersion 1 1.1 2 3 BenchFlowTestConfiguration configuration 1 sut 1 workload_name 1..N DataCollection only_declared: Boolean services: Option<Map<String, ServerSideConfiguration>> workloads: Option<Map<String, ClientSideConfiguration>> data_collection 0..1 goal 1 LoadFunction users: Option<Int> ramp_up: Time steady_state: Time ramp_down: Time load_function 1 TerminationCriteria +test: TestTerminationCriterion +experiment: ExperimentTerminationCriterion termination_criteria 0..1 QualityGates quality_gates 0..1 BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog

44. 20 Main Contributions Overall Contribution ➤ Main Contributions Overview BenchFlow Declarative DSL BenchFlowTest version: TestVersion name: String description: Option<String> workloads: Map<String, Workload> labels: Option<String> «abstract» Workload popularity: Option<Percent> Sut name: String type: Option<SutType> services_configuration: Option<Map<String, ServiceConfigurations>> Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» TestVersion 1 1.1 2 3 BenchFlowTestConfiguration configuration 1 sut 1 workload_name 1..N DataCollection only_declared: Boolean services: Option<Map<String, ServerSideConfiguration>> workloads: Option<Map<String, ClientSideConfiguration>> data_collection 0..1 goal 1 LoadFunction users: Option<Int> ramp_up: Time steady_state: Time ramp_down: Time load_function 1 TerminationCriteria +test: TestTerminationCriterion +experiment: ExperimentTerminationCriterion termination_criteria 0..1 QualityGates quality_gates 0..1 BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog

45. 21 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples Fill a gap identified in the performance testing literature by contributing an automation-oriented performance test catalog providing a comprehensive reference to properly identifying different kinds of performance tests and their automation requirements.

46. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity

47. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity - Expectations on the execution environment conditions

48. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity - Expectations on the execution environment conditions - Workload input parameters

49. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity - Expectations on the execution environment conditions - Workload input parameters - Required execution process

50. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity - Expectations on the execution environment conditions - Workload input parameters - Required execution process - Checks to be performed on the S.U.T.

51. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity - Expectations on the execution environment conditions - Workload input parameters - Required execution process - Checks to be performed on the S.U.T. - Measurements to be collected and metrics to be calculated

52. 22 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples - Assumptions on the S.U.T. maturity - Expectations on the execution environment conditions - Workload input parameters - Required execution process - Checks to be performed on the S.U.T. - Measurements to be collected and metrics to be calculated - Preliminary performance tests to be already executed

53. 23 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples

59. 24 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples 1.Baseline Performance Test 2.Unit Performance Test 3.Smoke Test 4.Performance Regression Test 5.Sanity Test 6.Load Test 7.Scalability Test 8.Elasticity Test 9.Stress Test 10.Peak Load Test 11.Spike Test 12.Throttle Test 13.Soak or Stability Test 14.Exploratory Test 15.Configuration Test 16.Benchmark Performance Test 17.Acceptance Test 18.Capacity or Endurance Test 19.Chaos Test 20.Live-traffic or Canary 21.Breakpoints Perf. Test 22.Failover or Recovery Test 23.Resiliency or Reliability 24.Snapshot-load Test 25.Volume or Flood Test

63. 25 Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples Exploratory Test

66. 26 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors BenchFlow Model-driven Framework BenchFlow Declarative DSL BenchFlowTest version: TestVersion name: String description: Option<String> workloads: Map<String, Workload> labels: Option<String> «abstract» Workload popularity: Option<Percent> Sut name: String type: Option<SutType> services_configuration: Option<Map<String, ServiceConfigurations>> Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» TestVersion 1 1.1 2 3 BenchFlowTestConfiguration configuration 1 sut 1 workload_name 1..N DataCollection only_declared: Boolean services: Option<Map<String, ServerSideConfiguration>> workloads: Option<Map<String, ClientSideConfiguration>> data_collection 0..1 goal 1 LoadFunction users: Option<Int> ramp_up: Time steady_state: Time ramp_down: Time load_function 1 TerminationCriteria +test: TestTerminationCriterion +experiment: ExperimentTerminationCriterion termination_criteria 0..1 QualityGates quality_gates 0..1 [Ferme and Pautasso, ICPE 2018] [Ferme et al., BPM 2015] [Ferme and Pautasso, ICPE 2016]

67. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions

68. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions Workloads

69. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions Workloads Simulated Users

70. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions Workloads Simulated Users Test Data

71. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions Workloads Simulated Users Test Data TestBed Management

72. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions Workloads Simulated Users Test Data TestBed Management Performance Data Analysis

73. 27 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Load Functions Workloads Simulated Users Test Data TestBed Management Performance Data Analysis Definition of Configuration Tests

74. 28 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Integration in CSDL

75. 28 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Integration in CSDL Know you I SUT-awareness

76. 28 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Declarative DSL Integration in CSDL Goal-Driven Performance Testing Know you I SUT-awareness

77. 29 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Test Scheduling

78. 29 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Test Scheduling Deployment Infra.

79. 29 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Test Scheduling Manage S.U.T. Deployment Infra.

80. 29 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Test Scheduling Manage S.U.T. Deployment Infra. Issue Workload

81. 29 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Test Scheduling Manage S.U.T. Deployment Infra. Issue Workload Collect Data

82. 29 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlow Model-driven Framework Test Scheduling Manage S.U.T. Deployment Infra. Issue Workload Analyse Data Collect Data

83. Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors 30 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test s

84. Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors 30 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test

85. Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors 30 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test

86. 31 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test BenchFlowTest version: TestVersion name: String description: Option<String> workloads: Map<String, Workload> labels: Option<String> «abstract» Workload popularity: Option<Percent> Sut name: String type: Option<SutType> services_configuration: Option<Map<String, ServiceConfigurations>> Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» TestVersion 1 1.1 2 3 BenchFlowTestConfiguration configuration 1 sut 1 workload_name 1..N DataCollection only_declared: Boolean services: Option<Map<String, ServerSideConfiguration>> workloads: Option<Map<String, ClientSideConfiguration>> data_collection 0..1 goal 1 LoadFunction users: Option<Int> ramp_up: Time steady_state: Time ramp_down: Time load_function 1 TerminationCriteria +test: TestTerminationCriterion +experiment: ExperimentTerminationCriterion termination_criteria 0..1 QualityGates quality_gates 0..1

91. 32 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» GoalType LOAD SMOKE SANITY CONFIGURATION SCALABILITY SPIKE EXHAUSTIVE_EXPLORATION STABILITY_BOUNDARY CAPACITY_CONSTRAINTS REGRESSION_COMPLETE REGRESSION_INTERSECTION ACCEPTANCE Observe Exploration exploration 0..1 observe 1

92. 32 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Goal type: GoalType stored_knowledge: Option<Boolean> «enumeration» GoalType LOAD SMOKE SANITY CONFIGURATION SCALABILITY SPIKE EXHAUSTIVE_EXPLORATION STABILITY_BOUNDARY CAPACITY_CONSTRAINTS REGRESSION_COMPLETE REGRESSION_INTERSECTION ACCEPTANCE Observe Exploration exploration 0..1 observe 1 «enumeration» ServiceMetric AVG_RAM AVG_CPU RESOURCE_COST ... «enumeration» WorkloadMetric AVG_RESPONSE_TIME THROUGHPUT AVG_LATENCY ... Observe ServiceObserve +service_name: List<ServiceMetric> services 0..N WorkloadObserve +workload_name: Option<List<WorkloadMetric>> +operation_name: Option<List<WorkloadMetric>> workloads 0..N

96. 33 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test LoadFunctionExplorationSpace users: Option<List<Int>> users_range: Option<[Int,Int]> users_step: Option<StepFunction[Int]> load_function 0..1 ExplorationSpace services: Option<Map<String, ServiceExplorationSpace>> service_name 0..* ServiceExplorationSpace resources: Option<Map<Resource, String> configuration: Option<Map<String, List<String>> Exploration StabilityCriteria services: Option<Map<String, ServiceStabilityCriterion>> workloads: Option<Map<String, WorkloadStabilityCriterion>> exploration_space 1 stability_criteria 0..1 exploration_strategy 1 Memory values: Option<List<Bytes>> range: Option<[Bytes,Bytes]> step: Option<StepFunction[Bytes]> Cpu values: Option<List<Millicores>> range: Option<[Millicores,Millicores]> step: Option<StepFunction[Millicores]> «abstract» Resource StepFunction[T] operator: StepFunctionOperator value: T resources 0..2 WorkloadStabilityCriterion max_mix_deviation: Percent ServiceStabilityCriterion avg_cpu: Option<StabilityCriterionSetting[Percent]> avg_memory: Option<StabilityCriterionSetting[Percent]> StabilityCriterionSetting[T] operator: StabilityCriterionCondition value: T service_name 0..* workload_name 0..* ExplorationStrategy selection: SelectionStrategyType validation: Option<ValidationStrategyType> regression: Option<RegressionStrategyType> «enumeration» StabilityCriterionCondition GREATHER_THAN LESS_THAN GREATHER_OR_EQUAL_THEN LESS_OR_EQUAL_THEN EQUAL «enumeration» StepFunctionOperator PLUS MINUS MULTIPLY DIVIDE POWER

103. 35 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test «enumeration» GateCondition GREATHER_THAN LESS_THAN GREATHER_OR_EQUAL_THEN LESS_OR_EQUAL_THEN EQUAL PERCENT_MORE PERCENT_LESS ServiceQualityGate gate_metric: ServiceMetric condition: GateCondition gate_threshold_target: String OR ServiceMetric gate_threshold_minimum: Option<String OR ServiceMetric> service_name 0..* WorkloadQualityGate max_mix_deviation: Option<Percent> max_think_time_deviation: Option<Percent> gate_metric: Option<WorkloadMetric> condition: Option<GateCondition> gate_threshold_target: Option<String OR WorkloadMetric> gate_threshold_minimum: Option<String OR WorkloadMetric> workload_name 0..* QualityGate services: Option<Map<String ServiceQualityGate>> workloads: Option<Map<String WorkloadQualityGate>> mean_absolute_error: Option<Percent> RegressionQualityGate service: Option<String> workload: Option<String> gate_metric: ServiceMetric OR WorkloadMetric regression_delta_absolute: Option<Time> regression_delta_percent: Option<Percent> regression 0..1

109. 37 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test TerminationCriteria TestTerminationCriterion max_time: Time max_number_of_experiments: Option<Int> max_failed_experiments: Option<Percent> TerminationCriterion max_number_of_trials: Int max_failed_trials: Option<Percent> services: Option<Map<String, ServiceTerminationCriterion>> workloads: Option<Map<String, WorkloadTerminationCriterion>> experiment 0..1 test 0..1 WorkloadTerminationCriterion confidence_interval_metric: WorkloadMetric confidence_interval_value: Float confidence_interval_precision: Percent ServiceTerminationCriterion confidence_interval_metric: ServiceMetric confidence_interval_value: Float confidence_interval_precision: Percent service_name 0..* workload_name 0..*

110. 38 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors s s

111. 39 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test «abstract» Workload popularity: Option<Percent> Sut name: String type: Option<SutType> services_configuration: Option<Map<String, ServiceConfigurations>> DataCollection only_declared: Boolean services: Option<Map<String, ServerSideConfiguration>> workloads: Option<Map<String, ClientSideConfiguration>> ExperimentTerminationCriteria max_time: Time BenchFlowExperiment version: ExperimentVersion name: String description: Option<String> workloads: Map<String, Workload> labels: Option<String> BechFlowExperimentConfiguration configuration 1 sut 1 workload 1 data_collection 1 load_function 1 TerminationCriterion max_number_of_trials: Int max_failed_trials: Option<Percent> services: Option<Map<String, ServiceTerminationCriterion>> workloads: Option<Map<String, WorkloadTerminationCriterion>> termination_criteria 1 experiment 0..1 «enumeration» ExperimentVersion 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 2.1 2.2 3 LoadFunction users: Int ramp_up: Time steady_state: Time ramp_down: Time SutVersion version 1

112. 40 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Checkout Build Unit Tests Integration Tests E2e Tests Smoke Tests Load Tests Acceptance Tests Regression Tests Deploy in Production FUNCTIONAL TESTS FUNCTIONAL TESTS PERFORMANCE TESTS

113. 41 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Suite Environment name: String skip_deploy: Option<Boolean> environments 0..N TestSuite version: TestSuiteVersion name: String description: Option<String> Test include_labels: Option<List<Regex>> paths: Option<List<String>> tests 1 Push branches: Option<List<Regex>> Trigger scheduled: Option<Boolean> triggers 0..1 PullRequest contexts: Option<ContextType> source_branches: Option<List<Regex>> target_branches: Option<List<Regex>> QualityGate criterion: CriterionType exclude: Option<List<String>> quality_gates 1 Event on 0..N Release types: List<String> Deployment names: List<String> suite 1 «enumeration» CriterionType ALL_SUCCESS AT_LEAST_ONE_SUCCESS «enumeration» TestSuiteVersion 1 1.1 «enumeration» ContextType HEAD MERGE ALL

117. 42 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Test

118. 43 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test 1 version: "3" 2 name: "Load Test" 3 description: "Example of Load Test" 4 labels: "load_test" 5 configuration: 6 goal: 7 type: "load_test" 8 # stored_knowledge: "false" 9 observe: 10 ... 11 load_function: 12 users: 1000 13 ramp_up: 5m 14 steady_state: 20m 15 ramp_down: 5m 16 termination_criteria: 17 ... 18 quality_gates: 19 ... 20 sut: 21 ... 22 workloads: 23 ... 24 data_collection: 25 # AUTOMATICALLY attached based on the observe section IF NOT specified 26 services: 27 ... Load Test

119. 43 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test 1 version: "3" 2 name: "Load Test" 3 description: "Example of Load Test" 4 labels: "load_test" 5 configuration: 6 goal: 7 type: "load_test" 8 # stored_knowledge: "false" 9 observe: 10 ... 11 load_function: 12 users: 1000 13 ramp_up: 5m 14 steady_state: 20m 15 ramp_down: 5m 16 termination_criteria: 17 ... 18 quality_gates: 19 ... 20 sut: 21 ... 22 workloads: 23 ... 24 data_collection: 25 # AUTOMATICALLY attached based on the observe section IF NOT specified 26 services: 27 ... Load Test Application Server DBMS Workflow Engine Job Executor Core Engine Transaction Manager Instance Database Persistent Manager Process Navigator A B C D Task Dispatcher Users Service Invoker … Web Service [Skouradaki et al., ICPE 2015] [Ferme et al., BPM 2015] [Ferme et al., CLOSER 2016] [Skouradaki et al., BPM 2016] [Ferme et al., BPM 2016] [Ivanchikj et al., BPM 2017] [Rosinosky et al., OTM 2018]

120. 44 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test 20 confidence_interval_precision: 95% 21 services: 22 service_a: 23 confidence_interval_metric: avg_cpu 24 confidence_interval_value: 60% 25 confidence_interval_precision: 95% 26 sut: 27 name: "my_app" 28 version: "v1.5" 29 type: "http" 30 sut_configuration: 31 default_target_service: 32 name: "service_a" 33 endpoint: "/" 34 sut_ready_log_check: "/(.*)System started(.*)/g" 35 deployment: 36 service_a: "my_server" 37 services_configuration: 38 service_a: 39 resources: 40 cpu: 100m 41 memory: 256Mi 42 configuration: 43 NUM_SERVICE_THREAD: 12 44 service_b: 45 resources: 46 cpu: 200m 47 memory: 256Mi 48 configuration: 49 THREADPOOL_SIZE: 64 50 dbms_a: 51 resources: 52 cpu: 100m 53 memory: 256Mi 54 configuration: 55 QUERY_CACHE_SIZE: 48Mi 56 workloads: 57 workload_a: 58 popularity: 70% 59 item_a: 60 driver_type: "http" 61 inter_operation_timings: "negative_exponential" SUT Conf. 1 version: "3" 2 name: "Load Test" 3 description: "Example of Load Test" 4 labels: "load_test" 5 configuration: 6 goal: 7 type: "load_test" 8 # stored_knowledge: "false" 9 observe: 10 ... 11 load_function: 12 users: 1000 13 ramp_up: 5m 14 steady_state: 20m 15 ramp_down: 5m 16 termination_criteria: 17 ... 18 quality_gates: 19 ... 20 sut: 21 ... 22 workloads: 23 ... 24 data_collection: 25 # AUTOMATICALLY attached based on the observe section IF NOT specified 26 services: 27 ... Load Test

121. 45 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test 1 version: "3" 2 name: "Configuration Test" 3 description: "Example of Configuration Test" 4 labels: "configuration" 5 configuration: 6 goal: 7 type: "configuration" 8 stored_knowledge: "true" 9 observe: 10 ... 11 exploration: 12 exploration_space: 13 services: 14 service_a: 15 resources: 16 cpu: 17 range: [100m, 1000m] 18 step: "*4" 19 memory: 20 range: [256Mi, 1024Mi] 21 step: "+768Mi" 22 configuration: 23 NUM_SERVICE_THREAD: [12, 24] 24 dbms_a: 25 resources: 26 cpu: 27 range: [100m, 1000m] 28 step: "*10" 29 memory: 30 range: [256Mi, 1024Mi] 31 step: "+768Mi" 32 configuration: 33 QUERY_CACHE_SIZE: 48Mi 34 exploration_strategy: 35 selection: "one_at_a_time" 36 load_function: 37 ... 38 termination_criteria: 39 ... 40 quality_gates: 41 ... Configuration Test

122. 45 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test 1 version: "3" 2 name: "Configuration Test" 3 description: "Example of Configuration Test" 4 labels: "configuration" 5 configuration: 6 goal: 7 type: "configuration" 8 stored_knowledge: "true" 9 observe: 10 ... 11 exploration: 12 exploration_space: 13 services: 14 service_a: 15 resources: 16 cpu: 17 range: [100m, 1000m] 18 step: "*4" 19 memory: 20 range: [256Mi, 1024Mi] 21 step: "+768Mi" 22 configuration: 23 NUM_SERVICE_THREAD: [12, 24] 24 dbms_a: 25 resources: 26 cpu: 27 range: [100m, 1000m] 28 step: "*10" 29 memory: 30 range: [256Mi, 1024Mi] 31 step: "+768Mi" 32 configuration: 33 QUERY_CACHE_SIZE: 48Mi 34 exploration_strategy: 35 selection: "one_at_a_time" 36 load_function: 37 ... 38 termination_criteria: 39 ... 40 quality_gates: 41 ... Configuration Test t λ wall clock time 9 AM 300 BenchFlow Faban Load test template Architect. con g. s0 1 ϕ i 0.015 Γk 0.042 pass/fail (ck ) PASS sn 1 2.164 0.108 FAIL ... ... δk 1.26 % 2.58 % δk ⋅ ck 1.26 % 0.00 % norm. test mass (si * p'(λ')) Σ 100.00 % 74.81 % 0.142 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ^ Operational pro le Empirical distribution of workload situations Baseline & test results per architectural con g. Domain metric dashboard #Workload situations ContinuITy Analysis of operational data 2 Experiment generation 3 Experiment execution 4 Domain metric calculation 5 Collection of operational data 1 λ' sampled workload situation f' 100 200 300 0.2 Relative Mass 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.05 0 50 100 150 200 Workload Situations (Number of Users) x x x x x x x 0.10 x 250 300 x x x Step (Intermediate) Artifact Tool [Avritzer et al., JSS 2020] [Avritzer et al., ICPE 2019] [Avritzer et al., ECSA 2018]

123. 45 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test 1 version: "3" 2 name: "Configuration Test" 3 description: "Example of Configuration Test" 4 labels: "configuration" 5 configuration: 6 goal: 7 type: "configuration" 8 stored_knowledge: "true" 9 observe: 10 ... 11 exploration: 12 exploration_space: 13 services: 14 service_a: 15 resources: 16 cpu: 17 range: [100m, 1000m] 18 step: "*4" 19 memory: 20 range: [256Mi, 1024Mi] 21 step: "+768Mi" 22 configuration: 23 NUM_SERVICE_THREAD: [12, 24] 24 dbms_a: 25 resources: 26 cpu: 27 range: [100m, 1000m] 28 step: "*10" 29 memory: 30 range: [256Mi, 1024Mi] 31 step: "+768Mi" 32 configuration: 33 QUERY_CACHE_SIZE: 48Mi 34 exploration_strategy: 35 selection: "one_at_a_time" 36 load_function: 37 ... 38 termination_criteria: 39 ... 40 quality_gates: 41 ... Configuration Test Application Server DBMS Workflow Engine Job Executor Core Engine Transaction Manager Instance Database Persistent Manager Process Navigator A B C D Task Dispatcher Users Service Invoker … Web Service t λ wall clock time 9 AM 300 BenchFlow Faban Load test template Architect. con g. s0 1 ϕ i 0.015 Γk 0.042 pass/fail (ck ) PASS sn 1 2.164 0.108 FAIL ... ... δk 1.26 % 2.58 % δk ⋅ ck 1.26 % 0.00 % norm. test mass (si * p'(λ')) Σ 100.00 % 74.81 % 0.142 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ^ Operational pro le Empirical distribution of workload situations Baseline & test results per architectural con g. Domain metric dashboard #Workload situations ContinuITy Analysis of operational data 2 Experiment generation 3 Experiment execution 4 Domain metric calculation 5 Collection of operational data 1 λ' sampled workload situation f' 100 200 300 0.2 Relative Mass 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.05 0 50 100 150 200 Workload Situations (Number of Users) x x x x x x x 0.10 x 250 300 x x x Step (Intermediate) Artifact Tool [Avritzer et al., JSS 2020] [Avritzer et al., ICPE 2019] [Avritzer et al., ECSA 2018]

124. 46 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors

125. 47 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Terminated Ready Running user paused Handle Experiment Result Validate Prediction Function Derive Prediction Function Remove Non Reachable Experiments Determine Exploration Strategy Add Stored Knowledge Determine and Execute Experiments: Experiment Life Cycle [can reach goal] [cannot reach goal] [Acceptable Prediction Error] [Not Acceptable Prediction Error] user terminated OR [execution time > max_time] Goal Reached Completed with Failure experiment results available Waiting user input needed user input received Start [no regression model] Validate Termination Criteria [experiments remaining] [all experiments executed] [regression model] [no regression model] [regression model] Determine and Execute Initial Validation Set: Experiment Life Cycle [regression model] [no regression model] experiment results available [validation set complete] Partially Complete Terminating Check Quality Gates [quality gates pass] [failed quality gates] Handle Experiment Result [validation set NOT complete] Remove Non Reachable Experiments for Validation Set [# executed experiments >= max_number_of_experiments]

126. 48 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Ready Running user paused Handle Experiment Result Remove Non Reachable Experiments Determine Exploration Strategy Add Stored Knowledge Determine and Execute Experiments: Experiment Life Cycle user terminated OR [execution time > max_time] experiment results available Waiting user input needed user input received Start [no regression model] Validate Termination Criteria [experiments remaining] [all experiments executed] [regression model] [no regression model] Determine and Execute Initial Validation Set: Experiment Life Cycle [regression model] [no regression model] experiment results available [validation set complete] Terminating Check Quality Gates [quality gates pass] [failed quality gates] Handle Experiment Result [validation set NOT complete] Remove Non Reachable Experiments for Validation Set [# executed experiments max_number_of_experim

127. 49 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Ready Running user paused Handle Experiment Result Remove Non Reachable Experiments Determine Exploration Strategy Add Stored Knowledge Determine and Execute Experiments: Experiment Life Cycle user terminated OR [execution time > max_time] experiment results available Waiting user input needed user input received Start [no regression model] Validate Termination Criteria [experiments remaining] [all experiments executed] [regression model] [no regression model] Determine and Execute Initial Validation Set: Experiment Life Cycle [regression model] [no regression model] experiment results available [validation set complete] Terminating Check Quality Gates [quality gates pass] [failed quality gates] Handle Experiment Result [validation set NOT complete] Remove Non Reachable Experiments for Validation Set [# executed experiments max_number_of_experim Entity YAML Specification Parse to YAML Object Parse + Syntactic Validation Semantic Validation Entity Representation Exception

132. 51 Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Terminated paused Handle Experiment Result Validate Prediction Function Derive Prediction Function Remove Non Reachable Experiments Add Stored Knowledge Determine and Execute Experiments: Experiment Life Cycle [can reach goal] [cannot reach goal] [Acceptable Prediction Error] [Not Acceptable Prediction Error] user terminated OR [execution time > max_time] Goal Reached Completed with Failure experiment results available needed [no regression model] Validate Termination Criteria [experiments remaining] [all experiments executed] [regression model] [no regression model] [regression model] Determine and Execute Initial Validation Set: Experiment Life Cycle [regression model] [no regression model] experiment results available [validation set complete] Partially Complete Terminating Check Quality Gates [quality gates pass] [failed quality gates] Handle Experiment Result [validation set NOT complete] Remove Non Reachable Experiments for Validation Set [# executed experiments >= max_number_of_experiments]

138. Evaluations & Case Studies 52

139. 53 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Expert Review

140. 53 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Expert Review Summative Evaluation

141. 53 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Expert Review Summative Evaluation Iterative Review, Case Studies

142. 53 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Expert Review Summative Evaluation Iterative Review, Case Studies Comparative Evaluation

143. 54 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective - Expressiveness for performance testing automation

144. 54 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective - Expressiveness for performance testing automation - Usability for target users

145. 54 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective - Expressiveness for performance testing automation - Usability for target users - Effort for target users

146. 54 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective - Expressiveness for performance testing automation - Usability for target users - Effort for target users - Reusability for target users

147. 54 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective - Expressiveness for performance testing automation - Usability for target users - Effort for target users - Reusability for target users - Well Suited for target users

148. 54 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective - Expressiveness for performance testing automation - Usability for target users - Effort for target users - Reusability for target users - Well Suited for target users - Suitability for target users vs. Imperative

149. 55 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction

150. 55 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check

151. 55 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach

152. 55 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Questions related to the Research Questions

153. 55 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Questions related to the Research Questions - Questions for additional feedback

154. 55 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Questions related to the Research Questions - Questions for additional feedback - Conclusion

155. 56 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Participants (18)

156. 57 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Results Highlights 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

159. 60 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective Learnability

160. 60 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Objective Learnability Reusability

161. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction

162. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check

163. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach

164. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Multiple-choice tasks related to the Research Questions

165. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Multiple-choice tasks related to the Research Questions - Questions on the overall approach

166. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Multiple-choice tasks related to the Research Questions - Questions on the overall approach - Questions for additional feedback

167. 61 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Structure - Introduction - Background check - Overview of the approach - Multiple-choice tasks related to the Research Questions - Questions on the overall approach - Questions for additional feedback - Conclusion

168. 62 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation https://www.getfeedback.com/resources/online-surveys/better-online-survey-respon se-rates/ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Participants (63)

169. 63 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Results Highlights

170. 64 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Results Highlights

171. 65 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Results Highlights 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

172. 66 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation alpha - No Test Model - Focused on BPMN 2.0 WfMSs - Only Faban V1 - Test Model - Exploration Test - Advanced Termination Criteria V1.1 V2 - RESTFul Web services supported - Added JMeter - More test goals - Quality Gates - More data collection services - More metrics and statistics - More test goals V3 - Predictive performance exploration - Integration with CSDL

173. 67 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 1024GB+ Crunched Data 30000+ Computed Metrics and Statistics 400+ Unique Tests DSL (20 SUTs / 64 Vers.) 5000+ Executed Test Runs Developers 7 Total … Uni versi tà del l a Svi zzera i tal i ana Adopters 3

174. 68 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 44 Solutions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

175. 68 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 9 Dimensions 44 Solutions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

176. 68 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 9 Dimensions 44 Solutions - None All dimensions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

177. 68 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 9 Dimensions 44 Solutions - None All dimensions - Few Goal-driven specification, SUT- awareness, SUT Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

178. 68 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 9 Dimensions 44 Solutions - None All dimensions - Few Goal-driven specification, SUT- awareness, SUT Management - Some Definition of Test Suite, Termination Criteria ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

179. 68 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation 9 Dimensions 44 Solutions - None All dimensions - Few Goal-driven specification, SUT- awareness, SUT Management - Some Definition of Test Suite, Termination Criteria - Most Test Validation, Automated Scheduling, Data Collection and Metrics, Quality Gates ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

180. Open Challenges 69

181. 70 Open Challenges and Outlook Simplify Workload Definition

182. 70 Open Challenges and Outlook IDE Support Needed Simplify Workload Definition

183. 70 Open Challenges and Outlook IDE Support Needed Additional Human-Readable Abstractions Simplify Workload Definition

184. Career and Contributions 71

185. 72 Career and Contributions 9 Supervised Thesis 6 Reviewer 4 Program Committee 7 Courses TA 40+ Co-authors 38 Overall Publications 730 Citations (h-index 15, i10-index 19) Ana Ivanchikj, Marco Argenti, Gabriele Cerfoglio, Simone D’Avico, Jesper Findahl, Manuel Palenga, Christoph Zorn, Francesco Berla, Marco Nivini

186. Concluding Remarks and Highlights 73

187. 74 Concluding Remarks and Highlights Context Continuous Software Development Lifecycles and DevOps ➤ Performance Engineering ➤ Performance Testing and DevOps CI Server Repo Developers, Testers, Architects Production CD Server C.S.D .L. Context STA / Declarative Declarative Performance Engineering “ Enabling the performance analyst to declaratively specify what performance- relevant questions need to be answered without being concerned about how they should be answered. ” [Ferme and Pautasso, ICPE 2018] Ferme, V. and Pautasso, C. (2018). A Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution in Continuous Software Development Environments. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE), pages 261–272. [Walter et al., 2016] Developers, Testers, Architects, Performance Analyst … [Ferme and Pautasso, ICPE 2018] [Walter et al., 2016] Jürgen Walter, André van Hoorn, Heiko Koziolek, Dusan Okanovic, and Samuel Kounev. Asking ”What”?, Automating the ”How”? -TheVision of Declarative Performance Engineering. In Proc. of ICPE 2016. 91–94. Test Catalog Automation-oriented Performance Tests Catalog Why a Catalog? ➤ Catalog Template ➤ Included Performance Tests ➤ Examples BenchFlow Experiment Execution Exploration Execution Analysis Test Bundle:  Test Suite / Test YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Metrics Failures Result Analysis Goal Exploration Experiment Generation Experiment Bundle: Experiment YAML + SUT Deployment Descriptor YAML + Files Success Execution Errors Declarative Approach for Performance Tests Execution Automation Elements & Requirements ➤ Approach Overview ➤ Test & Experiment Model ➤ Test Suite Model ➤ Defining a Test ➤ Executing a Test Statement Problem Statement To design new methods and techniques for the declarative specification of performance tests and their automation processes, and to provide models and frameworks enabling continuous and automated execution of performance tests, in particular referring to the target systems, target users and context of our work. Evaluations 53 Evaluations Overview ➤ Expert Review ➤ Summative Evaluation ➤ Iterative Review, Case Studies ➤ Comparative Evaluation Expert Review Summative Evaluation Iterative Review, Case Studies Comparative Evaluation

Declarative Performance Testing Automation - Automating Performance Testing for the DevOps Era

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Declarative Performance Testing Automation - Automating Performance Testing for the DevOps Era (20)

More from Vincenzo Ferme (10)

Recently uploaded (20)

Declarative Performance Testing Automation - Automating Performance Testing for the DevOps Era