arxiv: 2604.23048 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

The Impact of Documentation on Test Engagement in Pull Requests in OSS

Teal Amore , Nathan Berman , Siyuan Jiang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords open source softwarepull requeststesting documentationtest engagement ratiocontributor behaviorsoftware qualitycorrelation analysisOSS repositories

0 comments

The pith

Documentation comprehensiveness on testing correlates positively with how often contributors include tests in open-source pull requests.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates whether upfront documentation about testing can encourage contributors to write tests when submitting changes to open-source projects. It introduces the Test Engagement Ratio as a way to measure the share of pull requests that involve testing and compares this measure against the thoroughness of testing documentation across 160 repositories. The results identify a statistically significant positive link that grows stronger in repositories with more frequent pull requests. Certain documentation types, such as guides on running tests and writing tests, show the clearest associations. The work positions documentation as a potential proactive step for improving contribution quality before changes arrive.

Core claim

Across data from 160 OSS repositories, documentation comprehensiveness shows a weak but statistically significant positive correlation with the Test Engagement Ratio (ρ=0.36, p<0.001), which strengthens to a moderate relationship (ρ=0.44) in repositories with higher pull request activity. Documentation categories such as How to Run Tests and How to Write Tests exhibit the strongest correlations with testing engagement. The Test Engagement Ratio itself correlates moderately with Test Code Ratio (ρ=0.52, p<0.001), offering preliminary support for its validity as a measure of testing behavior.

What carries the argument

The Test Engagement Ratio (TER), a metric that quantifies testing frequency by tracking the proportion of pull requests containing tests, which serves as the dependent variable for correlating contributor behavior with documentation comprehensiveness.

If this is right

Improving specific testing documentation sections may be associated with higher rates of test inclusion in contributions.
The relationship appears stronger in repositories that receive more pull requests, indicating documentation value increases with project activity.
The Test Engagement Ratio can serve as a practical proxy for testing engagement because it aligns with measured test code proportions.
Documentation functions as a proactive step that operates before pull requests are opened, unlike reactive tools such as coverage reports or reviewer comments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Project maintainers could benefit from auditing and enhancing their testing guides as an early investment in contribution quality.
Randomized trials that update documentation in some repositories while holding others constant would directly test whether documentation causes changes in testing rates.
Wider use of such documentation might reduce downstream reliance on post-submission quality checks across open-source ecosystems.
The same documentation approach could be examined for its influence on other behaviors, such as adherence to coding standards or submission of performance benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The observed correlations reflect a genuine link between documentation and testing behavior rather than being driven by differences in project maturity, contributor experience, or other selection factors among the sampled repositories.

What would settle it

A study that controls for project age, size, and contributor background and still finds no correlation, or a controlled experiment where adding testing documentation to matched repositories produces no rise in their Test Engagement Ratio.

read the original abstract

Automated testing is crucial for maintaining open-source software quality. However, motivating contributors to include tests for code changes remains a challenge. While existing interventions, such as code coverage metrics and reviewer feedback, are often reactive and applied only after a pull request is opened, this study investigates whether documentation on testing can serve as a proactive measure to encourage testing behavior. In this work, we investigate the relationship between documentation on testing and contributor testing behavior. We introduce the Test Engagement Ratio (TER) to help understand testing frequency. Using data from 160 OSS repositories, we analyze the relationship between documentation comprehensiveness and TER. Our results show a weak but statistically significant positive correlation ($\rho=0.36$, $p<0.001$), which strengthens to a moderate relationship ($\rho=0.44$) in repositories with higher pull request activity. Documentation categories such as How to Run Tests and How to Write Tests show the strongest correlation with testing engagement. Furthermore, TER is found to be moderately correlated ($\rho=0.52$, $p<0.001$) with Test Code Ratio, providing preliminary evidence of its validity. Our findings suggest that documentation on testing may be associated with increased testing engagement. Future work will explore causality, documentation quality at a granular level, and cross-repository exposure effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Modest observational correlation between testing docs and PR test engagement, but project-level confounders are the main open question.

read the letter

Hi, the core result is a weak positive Spearman correlation (ρ=0.36) between how comprehensively projects document testing and their Test Engagement Ratio in pull requests, rising to 0.44 in the higher-activity subset. They introduce TER as a simple ratio of testing-related activity and show it tracks reasonably with actual test code proportion (ρ=0.52). That is the new piece: a targeted look at pre-submission documentation as a possible nudge, plus the metric itself, on 160 real OSS repositories. The category breakdowns (strongest for “How to Run Tests” and “How to Write Tests”) are a useful detail, and they are upfront that this is association only, with causality left for later work. The numbers are reported plainly with p-values and effect sizes, which is better than many similar empirical SE papers. The validity check on TER is a small but honest step. The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags: no visible controls or matching for repository age, size, star count, contributor experience, or overall PR volume. The fact that the link strengthens in the busy-project stratum is consistent with those factors driving both documentation quality and testing behavior. Without that, the association is hard to interpret cleanly even on its own terms. How they scored “documentation comprehensiveness” also matters for reproducibility, though the abstract-level description leaves that open. This is the sort of paper that belongs in an empirical software engineering venue. Readers who track OSS contributor practices or look for low-cost interventions would find it worth reading, but the small effect size and observational limits mean it is more of a prompt for follow-up than a result to act on. I would send it to peer review; the data collection and basic analysis are solid enough that referees can usefully tighten the methods and interpretation rather than reject outright.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether documentation on testing in OSS repositories is associated with increased testing engagement in pull requests. It introduces the Test Engagement Ratio (TER) to quantify testing frequency, analyzes data from 160 repositories, and reports a weak positive Spearman correlation (ρ=0.36, p<0.001) between documentation comprehensiveness and TER that strengthens to ρ=0.44 in high-PR-activity subsets. Specific categories (How to Run Tests, How to Write Tests) correlate most strongly; TER correlates moderately with Test Code Ratio (ρ=0.52) as a validity check. The authors conclude that documentation may be associated with testing behavior but defer causality questions to future work.

Significance. If the reported associations prove robust, the work offers a proactive, documentation-based angle on improving OSS testing practices that complements reactive tools like coverage metrics. The introduction of TER and its cross-validation against Test Code Ratio is a constructive methodological contribution to empirical software engineering. The scale (160 repositories) and focus on specific documentation categories add useful granularity to the literature on contributor behavior.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract/Results: The reported Spearman correlations (ρ=0.36 overall; ρ=0.44 in the high-PR subset) are presented without controls, matching, or stratification for observable confounders such as repository age, star count, contributor count, or total PR volume. This is load-bearing for even an associational interpretation, because documentation comprehensiveness could simply proxy for project maturity or activity level; the strengthening in the high-activity stratum is consistent with such confounding.
[Methods] Methods: The exact operationalization of 'documentation comprehensiveness' (scoring rules, weighting of categories, handling of missing docs) and the precise sampling frame for the 160 repositories are described only at abstract level. Without these, reproducibility is limited and selection bias cannot be assessed.
[Results] Results: The threshold defining the 'higher pull request activity' subset is a free parameter whose value is not reported; sensitivity of the ρ=0.44 result to alternative cut-offs should be shown, especially since the correlation strengthens precisely in this stratum.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The abstract lists only two example documentation categories; a complete list of categories examined and their individual correlation coefficients would improve transparency.
[Throughout] Notation: The precise formula or aggregation steps used to compute TER from pull-request data should be stated explicitly (even if simple) so readers can replicate the metric.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to strengthen the robustness and reproducibility of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] The reported Spearman correlations (ρ=0.36 overall; ρ=0.44 in the high-PR subset) are presented without controls, matching, or stratification for observable confounders such as repository age, star count, contributor count, or total PR volume. This is load-bearing for even an associational interpretation, because documentation comprehensiveness could simply proxy for project maturity or activity level; the strengthening in the high-activity stratum is consistent with such confounding.

Authors: We agree that the lack of controls for potential confounders is a limitation for interpreting the associations. Although the study is framed as exploratory and associational (with causality deferred to future work), we acknowledge that documentation comprehensiveness may correlate with project maturity. In the revised manuscript, we will add partial Spearman correlations and multivariate regression models controlling for repository age, star count, contributor count, and total PR volume. We will also report whether the associations persist after these controls and expand the limitations section to discuss residual confounding. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] The exact operationalization of 'documentation comprehensiveness' (scoring rules, weighting of categories, handling of missing docs) and the precise sampling frame for the 160 repositories are described only at abstract level. Without these, reproducibility is limited and selection bias cannot be assessed.

Authors: We agree that greater methodological detail is required. The revised Methods section will include a full description of the documentation scoring rubric (including per-category rules, aggregation method, and weighting), explicit handling of missing or incomplete documentation, and the precise sampling criteria and data collection protocol used to select the 160 repositories. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] The threshold defining the 'higher pull request activity' subset is a free parameter whose value is not reported; sensitivity of the ρ=0.44 result to alternative cut-offs should be shown, especially since the correlation strengthens precisely in this stratum.

Authors: We will explicitly state the threshold used to define the high-PR-activity subset in the revised Results section. We will also add a sensitivity analysis reporting the correlation for a range of alternative cut-offs (e.g., quartiles and different absolute PR counts) to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical correlations computed from external repository data

full rationale

The paper defines TER explicitly, computes Spearman rank correlations (ρ=0.36 overall, ρ=0.44 in high-PR subset, ρ=0.52 with Test Code Ratio) directly from observed data across 160 OSS repositories, and reports statistical significance without any fitted parameters, self-referential equations, or load-bearing self-citations. The validity check against Test Code Ratio is an independent external benchmark rather than a reduction of the reported statistics to the paper's own inputs. No derivation chain exists that collapses by construction; the results are standard observational statistics on independently collected data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The study rests on standard statistical assumptions for correlation analysis and the assumption that repository documentation and pull-request data accurately reflect contributor behavior without major measurement error.

free parameters (1)

Threshold for 'higher pull request activity' repositories
Used to split the sample and report the strengthened ρ=0.44; value not specified in abstract.

axioms (2)

standard math Spearman's rank correlation is appropriate for the ordinal or non-normal data involved
Invoked implicitly by reporting ρ values and p-values.
domain assumption Documentation comprehensiveness can be meaningfully quantified from repository files
Central to the independent variable; no details on scoring rubric provided.

invented entities (1)

Test Engagement Ratio (TER) independent evidence
purpose: Measure of testing frequency in pull requests
Newly introduced metric; preliminary validity shown via ρ=0.52 correlation with Test Code Ratio.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1429 out tokens · 57754 ms · 2026-05-08T11:07:55.908499+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Terryin/lizard, A simple code complexity analyser

2026. Terryin/lizard, A simple code complexity analyser. https://github.com/ terryyin/lizard

2026
[2]

Shepherd

Emad Aghajani, Csaba Nagy, Mario Linares-Vásquez, Laura Moreno, Gabriele Bavota, Michele Lanza, and David C. Shepherd. 2020. Software documentation: the practitioners’ perspective. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’20). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 590–601. doi:10.1145/3...

work page doi:10.1145/3377811.3380405 2020
[3]

Teal Amore, Nathan Berman, and Siyuan Jiang. 2026. The Impact of Documenta- tion on Test Engagement in Pull Requests in OSS. doi:10.5281/zenodo.18337219

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18337219 2026
[4]

Aniche, Gustavo A

Maurício F. Aniche, Gustavo A. Oliva, and Marco A. Gerosa. 2015. Why Statically Estimate Code Coverage is So Hard? A Report of Lessons Learned. In2015 29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. 185–190. doi:10.1109/SBES.2015.28

work page doi:10.1109/sbes.2015.28 2015
[5]

Tobias Baum. 2015. Leveraging pre-commit hooks for context-sensitive checklists: a case study. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 219–222. https://dl.gi.de/items/ d1101997-cc4a-4e83-8c68-8ce82c999e45

2015
[6]

Raquel Blanco, Manuel Trinidad, María José Suárez-Cabal, Alejandro Calderón, Mercedes Ruiz, and Javier Tuya. 2023. Can gamification help in software testing education? Findings from an empirical study.Journal of Systems and Software 200 (June 2023), 111647. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111647

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111647 2023
[7]

Ermira Daka and Gordon Fraser. 2014. A Survey on Unit Testing Practices and Problems. In2014 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. 201–211. doi:10.1109/ISSRE.2014.11

work page doi:10.1109/issre.2014.11 2014
[8]

Bruna Falcucci, Felipe Gomide, and Andre Hora. 2025. What Do Contribu- tion Guidelines Say About Software Testing?. In2025 IEEE/ACM 22nd Interna- tional Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). 434–438. doi:10.1109/ MSR66628.2025.00073

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

Amin Milani Fard and Ali Mesbah. 2017. JavaScript: The (Un)Covered Parts. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). 230–240. doi:10.1109/ICST.2017.28

work page doi:10.1109/icst.2017.28 2017
[10]

Alexander Hars and Shaosong Ou. 2002. Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Projects.International Journal of Electronic Com- merce6, 3 (April 2002), 25–39. doi:10.1080/10864415.2002.11044241 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2002.11044241

work page doi:10.1080/10864415.2002.11044241 2002
[11]

Zhixing Li, Yue Yu, Tao Wang, Shanshan Li, and Huaimin Wang. 2022. Oppor- tunities and Challenges in Repeated Revisions to Pull-Requests: An Empirical Study.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 317:1–317:35. doi:10.1145/3555208

work page doi:10.1145/3555208 2022
[12]

Matej Madeja, Jaroslav Porubän, Michaela Bačíková, Matúš Sulír, Ján Juhár, Sergej Chodarev, and Filip Gurbáľ. 2021. Automating Test Case Identification in Java Open Source Projects on GitHub.Computing and Informatics40, 3 (Nov. 2021), 575–605. doi:10.31577/cai_2021_3_575

work page doi:10.31577/cai_2021_3_575 2021
[13]

Zainab Masood, Rashina Hoda, Kelly Blincoe, and Daniela Damian. 2022. Like, dislike, or just do it? How developers approach software development tasks. Information and Software Technology150 (Oct. 2022), 106963. doi:10.1016/j.infsof. 2022.106963

work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof 2022
[14]

Naulty, Eason Chen, Joy Wang, George Digkas, and Kostas Chalkias

John E. Naulty, Eason Chen, Joy Wang, George Digkas, and Kostas Chalkias. 2025. Bugdar: AI-Augmented Secure Code Review for GitHub Pull Requests. In2025 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI). 613–616. doi:10.1109/CAI64502. 2025.00113

work page doi:10.1109/cai64502 2025
[15]

Raphael Pham, Jonas Mörschbach, and Kurt Schneider. 2015. Communicating software testing culture through visualizing testing activity. InProceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Social Software Engineering. ACM, Bergamo Italy, 1–8. doi:10.1145/2804381.2804382

work page doi:10.1145/2804381.2804382 2015
[16]

Raphael Pham, Leif Singer, Olga Liskin, Fernando Figueira Filho, and Kurt Schnei- der. 2013. Creating a shared understanding of testing culture on a social coding site. In2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 112–121. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606557

work page doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606557 2013
[17]

Gede Artha Azriadi Prana, Christoph Treude, Ferdian Thung, Thushari Atapattu, and David Lo. 2019. Categorizing the Content of GitHub README Files.Empirical Software Engineering24, 3 (June 2019), 1296–1327. doi:10.1007/s10664-018-9660-3

work page doi:10.1007/s10664-018-9660-3 2019
[18]

Deepthi, and Vallem Ranadheer Reddy

V Shobha Rani, Dr A Ramesh Babu, K. Deepthi, and Vallem Ranadheer Reddy. 2023. Shift-Left Testing in DevOps: A Study of Benefits, Challenges, and Best Practices. In2023 2nd International Conference on Automation, Computing and Renewable Systems (ICACRS). 1675–1680. doi:10.1109/ICACRS58579.2023.10404436

work page doi:10.1109/icacrs58579.2023.10404436 2023
[19]

Ronnie de Souza Santos, Luiz Fernando Capretz, Cleyton Magalhães, and Rodrigo Souza. 2023. Myths and Facts About a Career in Software Testing: A Comparison Between Students’ Beliefs and Professionals’ Experience.IEEE Software40, 5 (Sept. 2023), 76–84. doi:10.1109/MS.2023.3267296

work page doi:10.1109/ms.2023.3267296 2023
[20]

S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples).Biometrika52, 3/4 (1965), 591–611. doi:10.2307/2333709

work page doi:10.2307/2333709 1965
[21]

Gustavo Sizilio Nery, Daniel Alencar da Costa, and Uirá Kulesza. 2019. An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Continuous Integration and Test Code Evolution. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 426–436. doi:10.1109/ICSME.2019.00075

work page doi:10.1109/icsme.2019.00075 2019
[22]

Spearman

C. Spearman. 1961.The Proof and Measurement of Association Between Two Things. Appleton-Century-Crofts, East Norwalk, CT, US. doi:10.1037/11491-005 Pages: 58

work page doi:10.1037/11491-005 1961
[23]

Asher Trockman, Shurui Zhou, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2018. Adding sparkle to social coding: an empirical study of repository badges in the npm ecosystem. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 511–522. doi:10.1145/3180155.3180209

work page doi:10.1145/3180155.3180209 2018
[24]

Bogdan Vasilescu, Yue Yu, Huaimin Wang, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integra- tion in GitHub. InProceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 805–816. doi:10.1145/2786805.2786850

work page doi:10.1145/2786805.2786850 2015
[25]

Manushree Vijayvergiya, Małgorzata Salawa, Ivan Budiselić, Dan Zheng, Pascal Lamblin, Marko Ivanković, Juanjo Carin, Mateusz Lewko, Jovan Andonov, Goran Petrović, Daniel Tarlow, Petros Maniatis, and René Just. 2024. AI-Assisted Assess- ment of Coding Practices in Modern Code Review. InProceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Softw...

work page doi:10.1145/3664646.3665664 2024
[26]

Andy Zaidman, Bart Van Rompaey, Arie van Deursen, and Serge Demeyer. 2011. Studying the co-evolution of production and test code in open source and in- dustrial developer test processes through repository mining.Empirical Software Engineering16, 3 (June 2011), 325–364. doi:10.1007/s10664-010-9143-7

work page doi:10.1007/s10664-010-9143-7 2011
[27]

Fiorella Zampetti, Gabriele Bavota, Gerardo Canfora, and Massimiliano Di Penta
[28]

In2019 IEEE 26th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)

A Study on the Interplay between Pull Request Review and Continuous Integration Builds. In2019 IEEE 26th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 38–48. doi:10.1109/SANER.2019.8667996 ISSN: 1534-5351

work page doi:10.1109/saner.2019.8667996 2019