arXiv:2602.02965v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Developers create bug-reproducing tests that support debugging by failing as long as the bug is present, and passing once the bug has been fixed. These tests are usually integrated into existing test suites and executed regularly alongside all other tests to ensure that future regressions are caught. Despite this co-existence with other types of tests, the properties of bug-reproducing tests are scarcely researched, and it remains unclear whether they differ fundamentally. In this short paper, we provide an initial empirical study to understand bug-reproducing tests better. We analyze 642 bug-reproducing tests of 15 real-world Python systems. Overall, we find that bug-reproducing tests are not (statistically significantly) different from othe…
arXiv:2602.02965v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Developers create bug-reproducing tests that support debugging by failing as long as the bug is present, and passing once the bug has been fixed. These tests are usually integrated into existing test suites and executed regularly alongside all other tests to ensure that future regressions are caught. Despite this co-existence with other types of tests, the properties of bug-reproducing tests are scarcely researched, and it remains unclear whether they differ fundamentally. In this short paper, we provide an initial empirical study to understand bug-reproducing tests better. We analyze 642 bug-reproducing tests of 15 real-world Python systems. Overall, we find that bug-reproducing tests are not (statistically significantly) different from other tests regarding LOC, number of assertions, and complexity. However, bug-reproducing tests contain slightly more try/except blocks and ``weak assertions’’ (e.g.,~\texttt{assertNotEqual}). Lastly, we detect that the majority (95%) of the bug-reproducing tests reproduce a single bug, while 5% reproduce multiple bugs. We conclude by discussing implications and future research directions.