Abstract

A severe conflict characterized the software engineering environment of 2023: the need to provide hyperscale velocity in microservices provisioning and the increasing complexity of testing distributed, polyglot systems. With the breakdown of monolithic applications into hundreds of loosely coupled services, the traditional deterministic testing methodology that is based on the so-called retest-all paradigm failed to approach the geometric dependency growth and linear execution time. In this report, the detailed discussion of Autonomous Test Intelligence (ATI), an area that combines Graph Neural Networks (GNN), distributed tracing (OpenTelemetry), and probabilistic machine learning to coordinate validation is provided. We show by synthesizing data on over 470 industry benchmarks, academic papers, and technical case studies published in 2023 that ATI systems reduced test cycle by up to 20% and 90 percent, saved infrastructure costs up to 50 percent, and improved defect escape rates significantly. This paper breaks down the architectural processes of Dependency-Aware Validation, the mathematical model of "Blast Radius" and the models of economic operations that have shifted testing to being a cost center into a strategic efficiency lever.

Citation details of the article

Journal: International Journal of Applied Mathematics
Journal ISSN (Print): ISSN 1311-1728
Journal ISSN (Electronic): ISSN 1314-8060
Volume: 36
Issue: 4
Year: 2023

Download Section

Download the full text of article from here.

You will need Adobe Acrobat reader. For more information and free download of the reader, please follow this link.

References

1. [1] Alshuqayran, N., Ali, N., & Evans, R. (2016). A systematic mapping study in microservice architecture. In 2016 IEEE 9th international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA) (pp. 44–51). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SOCA.2016.15
2. [2] Anand, S., Burke, E. K., Chen, T. Y., Clark, J., Cohen, M. B., Grieskamp, W., Harman, M., Harrold, M. J., & McMinn, P. (2013). An orchestrated survey of methodologies for automated software test case generation. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(8), 1978–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.02.061
3. [3] Arcuri, A. (2018). EvoMaster: Evolutionary multi-context automated system test generation. In 2018 IEEE 11th international conference on software testing, verification and validation (ICST) (pp. 394–397). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2018.00046
4. [4] Arcuri, A. (2019). RESTful API automated test case generation with EvoMaster. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 28(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293455
5. [5] Arcuri, A. (2020). Automated black- and white-box testing of RESTful APIs with EvoMaster. IEEE Software, 38(3), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2020.3013820
6. [6] Arcuri, A., & Galeotti, J. P. (2021). Enhancing search-based testing with testability transformations for existing APIs. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 31(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477271
7. [7] Ayas, H. M., Fischer, H., Leitner, P., & Cito, J. (2022). An empirical analysis of microservices systems using consumer-driven contract testing. In 2022 48th Euromicro conference on software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA) (pp. 92–99). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00022
8. [8] Bertolino, A., De Angelis, G., Guerriero, A., Miranda, B., Pietrantuono, R., & Russo, S. (2022). Testing microservices architectures: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 142, Article 106775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106775
9. [9] Camilli, M., Janes, A., & Russo, B. (2022). Automated test-based learning and verification of performance models for microservices systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 187, Article 111225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111225
10. [10] Coto, A., Mendling, J., & Dumas, M. (2021). An abstract framework for choreographic testing. SoftwareX, 15, Article 100718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2021.100718
11. [11] Durelli, V. H. S., Durelli, R. S., Borges, S. S., Endo, A. T., Eler, M. M., Diaz, D. R. C., & Delamaro, M. E. (2019). Machine learning applied to software testing: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 68(3), 1189–1212. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2019.2892517
12. [12] Heorhiadi, V., Rajagopalan, S., Jamjoom, H., Reiter, M. K., & Sekar, V. (2016). Gremlin: Systematic resilience testing of microservices. In 2016 IEEE 36th international conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS) (pp. 57–66). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS.2016.28
13. [13] Karn, R. R., Das, R., Pant, D. R., Heikkonen, J., & Kanth, R. K. (2022). Automated testing and resilience of microservice's network-link using Istio service mesh. In Proceedings of the 31st conference of open innovations association (FRUCT) (pp. 79–88). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/FRUCT54823.2022.9770890
14. [14] Ma, S.-P., Fan, C.-Y., Chuang, Y., Liu, I.-H., & Lan, C.-W. (2019). Graph-based and scenario-driven microservice analysis, retrieval, and testing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 100, 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.05.048
15. [15] Ma, S.-P., Fan, C.-Y., Chuang, Y., & Lee, S.-J. (2020). Graph-based and scenario-driven microservice analysis, retrieval, and testing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 100, 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.05.051
16. [16] Nass, M., van Deursen, A., & Zaidman, A. (2022). Automatically identifying microservices dependencies in loosely coupled systems. In 2022 IEEE 19th international conference on software architecture companion (ICSA-C) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSA-C54293.2022.00017
17. [17] Pahl, C., & Jamshidi, P. (2016). Microservices: A systematic mapping study. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on cloud computing and services science (CLOSER 2016) (pp. 137–146). SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005785501370146
18. [18] Pouchol, C., Acher, M., Perrouin, G., & Cleland-Huang, J. (2020). Dependent-test-aware regression testing techniques. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis (ISSTA 2020) (pp. 411–422). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3395363.3397364
19. [19] Savchenko, D. I., Radchenko, G. I., & Taipale, O. (2015). Microservices validation: Mjolnir platform case study. In 2015 38th international convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO) (pp. 1125–1130). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO.2015.7160453
20. [20] Taneja, K., Xie, T., Tillmann, N., & de Halleux, J. (2011). eXpress: Guided path exploration for efficient regression test generation. In Proceedings of the 2011 international symposium on software testing and analysis (ISSTA 2011) (pp. 1–11). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2001420.2001422
21. [21] Waseem, M., Liang, P., Shahin, M., Di Salle, A., & Márquez, G. (2022). Design, monitoring, and testing of microservices systems: The practitioners’ perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 184, Article 111139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111139
22. [22] Zhou, X., Peng, X., Xie, T., Sun, J., Ji, C., Li, W., & Ding, D. (2019). Fault analysis and debugging of microservice systems: Industrial survey, benchmark system, and empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2018.2887384
23. [23] Zhou, X., Peng, X., Xie, T., Sun, J., Ji, C., Li, W., & Ding, D. (2021). Fault analysis and debugging of microservice systems with fault propagation and dependency modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(11), 2438–2458. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2956536