Welcome to Aetion! Since our debut in 2013, we have grown into one of the country’s leading science-driven technology companies using real-world evidence to provide innovative healthcare solutions

Aetion

Taking action has been a life-changing decision for me. It has brought a lot of clarity to my life and day-to-day activities. I get a lot of tasks done and improve myself consistently as well. It has put me on the path to slaying complacency, eliminating procrastination, and fulfilling my immense potential. These are four principles of how action breeds clarity, and how I implement them. 1. Learning by Doing Learning by doing stops us from overthinking things. We are only human. We will never be sure of every decision we make. We have an innate tendency to overthink and analyze situations before taking action. Overthinking leads to what is commonly known as "analysis paralysis." It blurs our perspective, creates confusion, and stagnates our progress. Overthinking creates multiple outcomes that lead to increased anxiety, dissatisfaction, and even paralysis. This concept was theorized by psychologist Barry Schwartz in his book “The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.” Schwartz argues that having choices is generally considered a positive aspect of modern life. The abundance of options in various domains—such as career paths and life decisions—can overwhelm individuals and hinder their ability to make effective decisions. We should use our time efficiently and learn in the process. Do not overthink things. Just-In-Time Knowledge Over Just-In-Case Knowledge “Just-in-time knowledge” refers to acquiring skills and information when they are immediately needed for a specific task, problem, or situation. “Just-in-case knowledge” refers to learning skills and information in preparation for future needs. Both approaches have their advantages. Why is this knowledge important? A lot of people read, watch videos, and consume information that they are unlikely to put into practice. This knowledge is more of an entertainment source than it is a learned skill. We are more likely to change a light bulb than apply survival tactics when faced with a lion. There’s nothing wrong with knowing how to survive a lion attack, but it’s very unlikely that you’ll use that knowledge. People who prioritize this type of knowledge are also prone to procrastination. They focus solely on what could happen. This keeps them in an endless cycle of worry and anxiety that prevents them from accomplishing the goals they’ve set for themselves. We prioritize just-in-time knowledge and reference Tim Ferris, who said, “Prefer just-in-time knowledge over just-in-case knowledge.” 3. Do and Reflect Getting things done while learning relevant aspects is good for our growth. Reflection gives us new perspectives of ourselves that allow us to analyze and improve on areas we are weak. It is important to see your goals through. Doing so staves off doubt, depression, and anxiety. It builds your character in the process, putting you in a position to continually improve. Resist the temptation to quit or give up. Do not second-guess yourself by wondering if you should do something else instead. Guard your mind against self-doubt and stay focused on the task at hand. Take action over your patterns, routines, and nuances. Don’t allow complacency to creep in as it can drain you of all your potential, leaving you depressed and unfulfilled. Adapt to changing circumstances and build on routines that make you better. 4. Building Confidence & Embracing the Unknown The action involves stepping into the unknown. Embracing uncertainty allows us to confront fears and doubts that hinder progress. Navigating through uncharted territories is scary and unpleasant. However, doing so builds and grows confidence. This confidence stems from realizing we can overcome challenges and learn from them. Overthinking can create worst-case scenarios that fill us with fear. Fear can hold you back from achieving your potential. Take the leap of faith into the unknown, and overcome the challenges that await you. As David Goggins says, “Embrace the suck!” It might not be pleasurable in the beginning, but you will learn how to deal with it. You’ll master how to navigate uncharted waters and come out the other side stronger than before. Conclusion Action breeds clarity and encapsulates a fundamental truth that transcends various aspects of life. It allows us to break free from the constraints of overthinking. We gain insights, experiences, and wisdom that lead to a clearer understanding of ourselves and our environment. The courage to take action propels us toward our goals while fostering adaptability and self-confidence. Action holds the key to the clarity we seek. The world is your oyster. Stop overthinking and act starting today. For these and more thoughts, guides and insights visit my blog at martinbaun.com Taking action has been a life-changing decision for me. It has brought a lot of clarity to my life and day-to-day activities. I get a lot of tasks done and improve myself consistently as well. It has put me on the path to slaying complacency, eliminating procrastination, and fulfilling my immense potential. These are four principles of how action breeds clarity, and how I implement them. 1. Learning by Doing Learning by doing stops us from overthinking things. We are only human. We will never be sure of every decision we make. We have an innate tendency to overthink and analyze situations before taking action. Overthinking leads to what is commonly known as "analysis paralysis." It blurs our perspective, creates confusion, and stagnates our progress. Overthinking creates multiple outcomes that lead to increased anxiety, dissatisfaction, and even paralysis. This concept was theorized by psychologist Barry Schwartz in his book “The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.” Schwartz argues that having choices is generally considered a positive aspect of modern life. The abundance of options in various domains—such as career paths and life decisions—can overwhelm individuals and hinder their ability to make effective decisions. We should use our time efficiently and learn in the process. Do not overthink things. Just-In-Time Knowledge Over Just-In-Case Knowledge “Just-in-time knowledge” refers to acquiring skills and information when they are immediately needed for a specific task, problem, or situation. “Just-in-case knowledge” refers to learning skills and information in preparation for future needs. Both approaches have their advantages. Why is this knowledge important? A lot of people read, watch videos, and consume information that they are unlikely to put into practice. This knowledge is more of an entertainment source than it is a learned skill. We are more likely to change a light bulb than apply survival tactics when faced with a lion. There’s nothing wrong with knowing how to survive a lion attack, but it’s very unlikely that you’ll use that knowledge. People who prioritize this type of knowledge are also prone to procrastination. They focus solely on what could happen. This keeps them in an endless cycle of worry and anxiety that prevents them from accomplishing the goals they’ve set for themselves. We prioritize just-in-time knowledge and reference Tim Ferris, who said, “Prefer just-in-time knowledge over just-in-case knowledge.” 3. Do and Reflect Getting things done while learning relevant aspects is good for our growth. Reflection gives us new perspectives of ourselves that allow us to analyze and improve on areas we are weak. It is important to see your goals through. Doing so staves off doubt, depression, and anxiety. It builds your character in the process, putting you in a position to continually improve. Resist the temptation to quit or give up. Do not second-guess yourself by wondering if you should do something else instead. Guard your mind against self-doubt and stay focused on the task at hand. Take action over your patterns, routines, and nuances. Don’t allow complacency to creep in as it can drain you of all your potential, leaving you depressed and unfulfilled. Adapt to changing circumstances and build on routines that make you better. 4. Building Confidence & Embracing the Unknown The action involves stepping into the unknown. Embracing uncertainty allows us to confront fears and doubts that hinder progress. Navigating through uncharted territories is scary and unpleasant. However, doing so builds and grows confidence. This confidence stems from realizing we can overcome challenges and learn from them. Overthinking can create worst-case scenarios that fill us with fear. Fear can hold you back from achieving your potential. Take the leap of faith into the unknown, and overcome the challenges that await you. As David Goggins says, “Embrace the suck!” It might not be pleasurable in the beginning, but you will learn how to deal with it. You’ll master how to navigate uncharted waters and come out the other side stronger than before. Conclusion Action breeds clarity and encapsulates a fundamental truth that transcends various aspects of life. It allows us to break free from the constraints of overthinking. We gain insights, experiences, and wisdom that lead to a clearer understanding of ourselves and our environment. The courage to take action propels us toward our goals while fostering adaptability and self-confidence. Action holds the key to the clarity we seek. The world is your oyster. Stop overthinking and act starting today. For these and more thoughts, guides and insights visit my blog at martinbaun.com martinbaun.com

Action Breeds Clarity

Docker in Action: Downloading Images, Building Containers, and Exposing Ports

Authors: (1) Philipp Straubinger, University of Passau, Passau, Germany and this author contributed equally to this research; (2) Tommaso Fulcini, Politecnico di Torino,  Torino, Italy and this author contributed equally to this research; (3) Gordon Fraser, University of Passau, Passau, Germany; (4) Marco Torchiano, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Background and Related Work Implementation Experiment Results Conclusions, Acknowledgement, and References 6 CONCLUSIONS This paper presents the integration and empirical evaluation of IntelliGame, a gamification plugin originally designed for Java development, in the realm of JavaScript unit testing. The study aimed to validate IntelliGame’s effectiveness in JavaScript, adapting it to the popular Jest testing framework. Despite challenges such as transitioning from IntelliJ Community Edition to Ultimate for JavaScript support and addressing differences in coverage information, we successfully ported 19 out of 26 achievements. The controlled experiment with 152 participants revealed mixed perceptions of IntelliGame’s impact, with achievements influencing testing behaviour and participants’ motivation. We will continue with an in-depth analysis of the experimental measures and the code written by the participants to gain more insights and to broaden our knowledge of IntelliGame. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was carried out within the “EndGame - Improving Endto-End Testing of Web and Mobile Apps through Gamification” project (2022PCCMLF) – funded by European Union – Next Generation EU within the PRIN 2022 program (D.D.104 - 02/02/2022 Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca). This manuscript reflects only the authors’ views and opinions and the Ministry cannot be considered responsible for them. This work is also supported by the DFG under grant FR 2955/2-1, “QuestWare: Gamifying the Quest for Software Tests”. REFERENCES [1] Riccardo Coppola, Tommaso Fulcini, Luca Ardito, Marco Torchiano, and Emil Alègroth. 2023. On Effectiveness and Efficiency of Gamified Exploratory GUI Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2023), 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TSE.2023.3348036 [2] Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining "Gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (Tampere, Finland) (MindTrek ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040 [3] Tommaso Fulcini, Riccardo Coppola, Luca Ardito, and Marco Torchiano. 2023. A Review on Tools, Mechanics, Benefits, and Challenges of Gamified Software Testing. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 14s, Article 310 (jul 2023), 37 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3582273 [4] Andreas Jedlitschka and Dietmar Pfahl. 2005. Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005. IEEE, 10–pp. [5] José Miguel Rojas and Gordon Fraser. 2016. Code Defenders: A Mutation Testing Game. In 2016 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW). 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW. 2016.43 [6] Statista. 2023. Most used programming languages among developers worldwide as of 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/793628/worldwide-developersurvey-most-used-languages/ Accessed: 2023-12-05. [7] Philipp Straubinger and Gordon Fraser. 2023. A Survey on What Developers Think About Testing. In 2023 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE). 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE59848.2023.00075 [8] Philipp Straubinger and Gordon Fraser. 2024. Improving Testing Behavior by Gamifying IntelliJ. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, April 14-20, 2024. ACM, 49:1–49:13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597503.3623339 [9] Kwangwon Sun and Sukyoung Ryu. 2017. Analysis of JavaScript programs: Challenges and research trends. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 4 (2017), 1–34. [10] Bo Wang, Aashish Kolluri, Ivica Nikolic, Teodora Baluta, and Prateek Saxena. 2023. User-Customizable Transpilation of Scripting Languages. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 7, OOPSLA1 (2023), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586034 This paper is under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

IntelliGame in Action: Gamifying JavaScript Unit Tests - Conclusions, and References

Authors: (1) Philipp Straubinger, University of Passau, Passau, Germany and this author contributed equally to this research; (2) Tommaso Fulcini, Politecnico di Torino,  Torino, Italy and this author contributed equally to this research; (3) Gordon Fraser, University of Passau, Passau, Germany; (4) Marco Torchiano, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Background and Related Work Implementation Experiment Results Conclusions, Acknowledgement, and References 5 RESULTS While the analysis of results is ongoing, we provide a preliminary overview by addressing the challenges encountered, our problem-solving approaches, and insights from the exit survey completed by students regarding their perceived user experience. 5.1 Survey Answers Based on the responses to the exit survey (Fig. 2), the chosen target class was well-received by all groups. All groups unanimously agreed that the class was easy to comprehend and implement. However, it is noteworthy that just under half of the participants in the treatment group and fewer than 40% in the control group indicated they had sufficient time to complete the implementation. Consequently, it is not surprising that only approximately 25% in both groups felt they had enough time to conduct thorough testing of their implementations. Interestingly, around two-thirds of all participants actively tested their code. Notably, a smaller percentage of participants wrote tests during the development phase, with 52% in the treatment group compared to 44% in the control group. Roughly 50% of participants in both groups were confident in the correctness of their implementations. Conversely, only 21% in the treatment group and 14% in the control group were certain about the quality of their test suites. No significant differences were observed between the two groups. Concerning the responses of the treatment group regarding IntelliGame, they are predominantly positive or, at worst, undecided (Fig. 3). Participants demonstrated a clear understanding of the tool’s descriptions and how to make progress in the presented achievements. They also appreciated the frequency of the notifications. About 40% of the participants reported that the achievements positively influenced their testing behavior, and an equivalent percentage mentioned being motivated by both the notifications and the plugin itself. Encouragingly, 42% of participants expressed a desire to use IntelliGame in their own projects. 5.2 Problems Faced and Lessons Learned In the initial adaptation phase, we faced challenges while transitioning the original TypeScript project to JavaScript. Although automatic transpilation facilitated obtaining the correct JavaScript code, the hurdle lies in converting the TS configuration to a JScompatible one. Since the original project used another testing framework, i.e., Karma, we had to modify the configuration to fit Jest. Another challenge arose when configuring the main.js file for manual function assessment. Unlike Java, where a Main class defines the starting point, JavaScript, especially in the Node framework, lacks that. So, in order to reproduce the same setting as the original validation experiment [8], we had to create a custom file for this purpose. Throughout the experiment, additional issues surfaced and required adaptation of the plugin. In the first session, participants could only choose between running the project via tests or main execution due to the provided configuration. Despite being shown how to switch between configurations, most participants stuck with one method for the entire session. Upon reflection, we observed that the number of tasks overwhelmed participants, leading them to feel demotivated despite knowing that their performance would not be evaluated. While they found the functions appropriately challenging, the abundance of tasks influenced their survey responses negatively (e.g., rating their implementation/test suite as being not good enough and expressing dissatisfaction with the tool). We attribute the superior performance of students in the pilot study to their greater experience and a less pressured environment. To address this, future experiments will involve students with comparable experience levels to the overall sample. We hypothesize that incorporating gamification elements aimed at promoting TDD approach to the plugin may yield to even more encouraging results. Minor issues included students incorrectly selecting a parent directory when opening the project, interrupting the script that committed their progress to the repository. We promptly identified and resolved these problems. General challenges with the committing process stemmed from variations in participants’ laptop configurations, which we sometimes deemed unsolvable, opting to collect the final project state at the designated time. This paper is under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

IntelliGame in Action: Gamifying JavaScript Unit Tests - Results

Imagining a world less economically interconnected than our current one is challenging. Yet, three decades ago, global interactions were markedly different – companies engaged in significantly fewer cross-border payments and were predominantly focused on domestic endeavors. Fast forward to today’s borderless global economy reliant on international supply chains, remote workforces, and API-first tech stacks, and the siloed business models of yesteryear have nearly completed their relegation to obsolescence. With a persistent desire to increase the speed of processes across organizations and government agendas worldwide, there is a modern imperative to streamline cross-border payments to improve efficacy. However, fraud is the primary challenge contributing friction to the objective at hand. Two Aspects to Improve: Speed & Security The surge in cross-border payments, driven by trade, capital, and migration flows, is only expected to climb – with a reported __ __With such expected growth comes a need to improve the efficiency and speed of cross-border payments, as evidenced by conversations led by the European Union in recent times. $190 trillion in 2023 projected to reach $290 trillion by 2030. In October 2022, the European Commission introduced a legislative proposal aimed at enabling citizens with bank accounts in the European Economic Area to execute instant euro payments. Earlier this month, the legislation was officially passed, with banks and payment service providers now mandated to allow EU citizens and businesses to conduct nearly instantaneous credit transfers. Despite significant growth, cross-border payments remain expensive and sluggish with fees , and a timeframe that can take up to several days for payments to complete. Reducing the cost, speeding up the process, and enhancing the accessibility of cross-border payments would yield significant advantages, particularly in emerging and developing economies. averaging 1.5% for corporations, 6.3% for remittances The critical challenge for companies engaged in this field is to devise strategies that effectively balance the two aspects of speed and security; to serve customers' ideal desires of near-instantaneous payments that are completely secure. The Cross-Border Payments Fraud Problem Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. While only representing 11% of total card payment transactions, cross-border payments accounted for . Fraudsters are particularly drawn to cross-border payments because they can easily steal funds, often as a result of weak security measures. 63% of card fraud Most notably, the physical distance between the fraudsters and their victims significantly lowers the chances of the perpetrators being caught. Since victims have limited options for recourse after being defrauded, cross-border payments are frequently seen as the easiest opportunity for fraudsters to execute scams. How Fraud Undermines Trust Increasing fraud rates have the potential to erode trust in the security of cross-border payments, and a loss of faith in the security of these payments could lead to an eventual decline, diminishing the future viability of businesses dependent on an international marketplace. Victims of cross-border payment fraud are ensnared by an array of sophisticated tactics. In Account Takeover (ATO) fraud, perpetrators gain unauthorized access to victims' banking or digital wallet accounts, manipulating them for illicit transactions. Even within the broader fraud threat landscape, account takeovers are a growing problem, with an estimated 22% of adults in the US falling victim to this type of fraud in 2022. Another popular method is chargeback fraud, which involves deceitful transaction reversals, while stolen card fraud sees the unauthorized use of credit or debit card details for fraudulent purchases or withdrawals. While sometimes referred to as ‘friendly fraud,’ chargeback fraud can be far from pleasant and is growing at a rate of around 41% a year. Cross-border payments are also susceptible to fraudsters looking to commit money laundering. Money laundering intricately disguises the origins of illicit funds, complicating efforts to trace them back to criminal activities. Once again, this is a huge fraud problem generally. In fact, anti-money laundering fines were up 50% last year alone. Other forms of fraud affecting the cross-border payment process include BIN attacks, triangulation fraud, and Authorized Push Payment (APP). Together, these tactics not only inflict financial losses but can also severely damage victims’ credit history and erode trust in digital financial transactions across the board. New Ways to Address Old Problems The answer to addressing fraud in cross-border payments is to get proactive and stop the issue before it occurs. Unfortunately, traditional risk technologies have been expensive to develop, slow to implement, complex, and ultimately, unable to keep pace with evolving fraud trends. Thankfully, new solutions are now coming to the fore that offer significant improvements. Artificial intelligence (AI) advancements have opened new avenues to address these challenges. Through advanced digital footprinting and the power of machine learning, modern fraud prevention solutions that leverage AI can find the tell-tale signs of fraud that humans tend to miss and help to stop it in its tracks. For companies like SEON, the ability to enrich data is key to this effort. Without always realizing it, users regularly leave behind digital footprints on the sites they visit. By analyzing this information, solutions like ours can unlock the likelihood of an individual being fraudulent while simultaneously making other critical determinations around online accounts. Fraud prevention solutions that leverage AI have the potential to impart considerable new trust across the cross-border payment space. Whether it’s leveraging behavioral analysis techniques to spot anomalies in user behaviors that indicate account takeovers or utilizing transaction monitoring to spot any unusual transfers of funds, the technology could be transformative. Maintaining Trust In the context of cross-border money transfers, trust is paramount. Without maintaining this trust, the entire system risks being compromised. Embracing and integrating advanced technologies is not just about safeguarding funds; it is a crucial step in ensuring the integrity and reliability of the global financial system. Thus, adopting solutions utilizing AI, machine learning, and other state-of-the-art tools, like SEON, represents more than technological progress. More than ever, it's increasingly vital for companies and individuals undertaking this essential process to recognize their role in combating the growing threat of fraud. For more information about SEON, please visit: <https://seon.io/](https://seon.io/) Also published here

Combatting Cross-Border Payment Fraud: A Call to Action for Secure Transactions

Authors: (1) Philipp Straubinger, University of Passau, Passau, Germany and this author contributed equally to this research; (2) Tommaso Fulcini, Politecnico di Torino,  Torino, Italy and this author contributed equally to this research; (3) Gordon Fraser, University of Passau, Passau, Germany; (4) Marco Torchiano, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Background and Related Work Implementation Experiment Results Conclusions, Acknowledgement, and References 4 EXPERIMENT The primary aim of the experiment was to replicate the conditions outlined in the original validation paper [8], adhering to the guidelines set by Jedlitschka et al. [4]. However, as the goal was not to assess the effectiveness of the tool but rather to test its applicability with a different programming language and subjects, we introduced some modifications to the experimental approach. 4.1 Participant Selection We invited graduate students from the Software Engineering course at Politecnico di Torinoto participate voluntarily in the experiment. Successful participation earned students additional points for their Software Engineering exam, with the assurance that their performance would not impact their bonus points to avoid bias. All participating students possessed prior JavaScript testing experience, as the Software Engineering course extensively covered unit testing using the Jest framework. The sample of participants in this study comprised 152 individuals, with 85% identifying as male and the remaining 15% as female. Over 90% fell within the age range of 22 to 25, being graduate students. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: treatment and control. The majority of participants had less than three months of experience with JavaScript, and it is worth noting that the treatment group had less experience compared to the control group with 59% and 47% having less than three months of experience, respectively. Additionally, 96% of participants in both groups had less than three months of experience with Jest. In fact, the majority of participants were introduced to JavaScript and Jest during the course’s lectures. 4.2 Project Selection Initially, with a shift in the reference programming language, the need arose to select an alternative project, departing from the FixedOrderComparator Java class used in the original study [8]. Our criteria for project selection involved finding a subject that presented both challenge and feasibility within a 150-minute timeframe. We sought a real existing project to capture the complexity 3https://github.com/tsantalis/RefactoringMiner of a real-world scenario, emphasizing documentation, a comprehensive test suite, and modularity. Modularity was crucial, allowing participants to choose among modules, and deciding whether to tackle more complex or simpler functions. The selection process began by exploring JavaScripting[4], a repository of publicly available JavaScript projects. Given the extensive collection, including popular frameworks like React, React Native, Vue, and Angular, we narrowed down our search to importable lightweight libraries with standardized functionalities. We focused on the miscellaneous category for a subject meeting our criteria. The first project suiting our needs was Date Fns5 , an open-source project featuring 244 functions related to the date data type. Functions ranged from trivial tasks like determining the order between two dates to more complex operations like formatting data with ISO or RFC representation. The project, widely used (over two million times) and well-maintained by 300+ contributors with over a thousand forks, met our requirements. The project, however, was developed in TypeScript (TS) rather than JS. Notwithstanding the difference between the two programming languages, given the high project usage and reliability, the full interoperability of JS code in TS and the possibility of directly transposing TS code into JS, was deemed that this language difference was not a reason for exclusion. Moreover, we consider it valuable for the reader to discuss in section 5.2 the problems encountered and the solutions put in place to resolve them. For these reasons, we used the JS version obtained through transpilation [10]. The seamless interoperability between the two languages facilitated the conversion of functions from TS to JS, made possible with the help of the open-source automatic tool transform[6]. 4.3 Experiment Task We carefully chose a set of 23 functions from the original GitHub Date Fns project, prioritizing simplicity in terms of complexity and lines of code. The aim was to ensure that most students could confidently build and test these functions without feeling overwhelmed by their difficulty Before assigning the experiment task, we conducted a pilot study with three master’s students nearing graduation. This helped validate the task’s scalability. While no data was collected from them, the pilot ensured proper calibration by adjusting the assignment’s complexity, excluding the three most challenging functions. The functions’ bodies were removed, leaving the requirements, function names, and parameters intact. The project incorporated complete JavaScript documentation for built-in date functions, eliminating the need for online references. Two verification methods were provided: a Jest configuration with empty test files for participants to complete and run, and a main.js file acting like the Main class in Java, mirroring the original experiment’s setup [8]. Two sessions were held: the first with 60 participants and the second with the remaining individuals. This division allowed potential data discarding from the first day if any issues arose. Participants were split into a control group, tackling tasks without achievements, and a treatment group, completing tasks with the plugin enabled. Participants from the treatment group were instructed on how the gamification plugin works but were not shown in detail the conditions for unlocking each achievement. These were shown in an overlay box displayed on the screen when hovering the mouse over each achievement of the list. During the experiment, a custom event logger recorded achievement states after each user interaction. An automated script committed and pushed current implementations and log files to a Git repository every minute. Following the 150-minute implementation phase, an exit questionnaire featured general questions for both groups. The treatment group received an additional page at the end of the survey inquiring about their plugin experiences, with answers on a five-point Likert scale. An optional free-text question allowed participants to share individual comments and feedback. This paper is under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [4] https://www.javascripting.com/ [5] https://github.com/date-fns/date-fns [6] https://github.com/ritz078/transform

IntelliGame in Action: Gamifying JavaScript Unit Tests - Experiment

Authors: (1) Philipp Straubinger, University of Passau, Passau, Germany and this author contributed equally to this research; (2) Tommaso Fulcini, Politecnico di Torino,  Torino, Italy and this author contributed equally to this research; (3) Gordon Fraser, University of Passau, Passau, Germany; (4) Marco Torchiano, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Background and Related Work Implementation Experiment Results Conclusions, Acknowledgement, and References 3 IMPLEMENTATION To enable JavaScript support in IntelliGame, we transitioned from using IntelliJ Community Edition to IntelliJ Ultimate[1]. This shift was necessary because JavaScript support is exclusively available in the latter. While we managed to adapt most of the existing test achievements for JavaScript, some proved challenging to port, and a few were even deemed impossible. Adjusting for test execution tracking, such as the number of tests and assertions, was straightforward, thanks to the Jest testing framework’s syntax[2]. However, obtaining coverage information posed a greater challenge. The built-in test engine of IntelliJ lacks the same coverage details for JavaScript as it does for Java, such as covered branches or methods. To address this, we devised a specialized test execution configuration that utilizes Jest to output overall coverage information to the console. We extract and employ this information for our achievements. Additionally, Jest writes coverage details to a JSON file, offering comprehensive class-specific information that we leverage for the remaining achievements. In summary, we extract JavaScript coverage information from three sources: the built-in test engine, the console, and summary files. Another obstacle arose with the JavaScript debugger, which lacks support for method breakpoints and field watchpoints, required by the implementation of some of the achievements. Unfortunately, we could not find suitable alternatives for these features. Similarly, most of the refactoring-related achievements, implemented using RefactoringMiner for Jav[a3], lacked equivalent tools for JavaScript. Despite facing challenges, we successfully transferred 19 achievements out of 26 from Java to JavaScript. These achievements can be identified by a small JavaScript symbol (see Fig. 1). Each achievement is represented by a trophy indicating the level, a progress bar showing the current progress towards the next level, and a description detailing the progress required for reaching the next level, accessible by hovering over the question mark. For further details and explanations of the achievements, refer to related work [8]. This paper is under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/products/compare/?product=idea&product=idea-ce [2] https://jestjs.io/ [3] https://github.com/tsantalis/RefactoringMiner

IntelliGame in Action: Gamifying JavaScript Unit Tests - Implementation

Authors: (1) Philipp Straubinger, University of Passau, Passau, Germany and this author contributed equally to this research; (2) Tommaso Fulcini, Politecnico di Torino,  Torino, Italy and this author contributed equally to this research; (3) Gordon Fraser, University of Passau, Passau, Germany; (4) Marco Torchiano, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Background and Related Work Implementation Experiment Results Conclusions, Acknowledgement, and References 2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK Compared to writing code, testing is often viewed as less rewarding by software developers, requiring significant effort without always resulting in due recognition from management [7]. To address issues related to motivation and acknowledgment of testers’ contributions, various solutions have been proposed, encompassing both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Gamification, a rising trend in this domain, has experienced substantial growth over the past decade [3], even leading to dedicated conferences in the academic sector. Defined as by Deterding et al. [2], gamification involves creating a playful environment in which users can accomplish their daily tasks. Completing daily goals within such an environment allows users to benefit from the motivators associated with the designed game elements, making the underlying activity more engaging and satisfying. the use of game elements in a non-playful context Software testing has been successfully gamified in particular in the context of education. For example, Code Defenders [5] is a gamified application to teach mutation testing concepts in an academic setting, where students assume either of two roles: attackers or defenders. Users from both sides engage in a mutual challenge on a shared Java class, applying mutation testing. The attackers’ goal is to create code mutants (variants of the class with the same functionality), while the defenders’ objective is to enhance the existing test suite with new test cases to detect the code mutants. The gamified platform incorporates mechanics and dynamics that integrate social interaction, creativity, and competition. Gamification has also been applied in a practical rather than educational context. For example, Coppola et al. [1] propose a framework to gamify exploratory GUI testing using a Capture and Replay tool for web applications. The gamification layer introduces common game elements such as scores and leaderboards, as well as novel elements not previously explored in the literature, including dynamic visual bug injection with related visual feedback and scores, along with a progress bar tracking the tester’s exploration, i.e., the achieved widget coverage of a specific web page. As indicated in a recent survey on gamified software testing [3], current trends in the literature show that unit testing is the most targeted level, with the most focused testing phase being test creation and execution. Popular techniques considered by researchers and practitioners include Mutation, Black Box, and White Box testing. While IntelliGame initially emerged as a unit test tool, its achievement-based structure allows for extensibility across various testing dimensions, introducing achievements specific to each. This paper is under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

AETION

aetion.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

AETION

EVERGREEN INDEX #963

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Aetion WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

AETION

aetion.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

AETION

EVERGREEN INDEX #963

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT AETION

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Aetion WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!