SMART RETRY MECHANISMS IN API TESTING WITH JUNIT

ABSTRACT

Automated API testing faces challenges due to transient failures caused by network latency, server overload, or temporary unavailability. Traditional retry mechanisms often rely on static parameters, leading to inefficiencies or persistent failures. This paper proposes a novel "smart" retry mechanism integrated with JUnit, utilizing a machine learning model to predict retry success probabilities. Through an extensive study involving 15 microservices and 300 API endpoints, we demonstrate a significant reduction in false test failures, with only a minimal increase in execution time. The approach leverages logistic regression trained on historical test data, offering a context-aware solution. The methodology, experimental results, and scalability analysis are presented, highlighting the practical significance for testing frameworks in dynamic environments.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Автоматическое тестирование API сталкивается с проблемами из-за временных сбоев, вызванных задержками в сети, перегрузкой сервера или временной недоступностью. Традиционные механизмы повторных попыток часто полагаются на статические параметры, что приводит к неэффективности или постоянным сбоям. В данной статье предлагается новый «интеллектуальный» механизм повторных попыток, интегрированный с JUnit, который использует модель машинного обучения для прогнозирования вероятности успеха повторных попыток. В ходе обширного исследования, в котором участвовали 15 микросервисов и 300 конечных точек API, мы продемонстрировали значительное сокращение ложных сбоев тестирования при минимальном увеличении времени выполнения. В этом подходе используется логистическая регрессия, обученная на исторических данных тестирования, что позволяет получить контекстно-зависимое решение. Представлены методология, результаты экспериментов и анализ масштабируемости, подчеркивающие практическую значимость для тестовых фреймворков в динамичных средах.

Ключевые слова: автоматизированное тестирование, машинное обучение, Java, JUnit, Python, Docker, API тестирование.

Keywords: Automated testing, Machine learning, Java, JUnit, Python, Docker, API testing.

Introduction

The rapid adoption of microservices architectures has underscored the importance of robust API testing to ensure seamless service interactions. However, transient failures-such as HTTP 503 Service Unavailable or timeouts-introduce instability, resulting in false negatives that undermine test reliability. Traditional retry mechanisms, employing fixed retry counts or delays, fail to adapt to the context of failures, either over-retrying and increasing execution time or under-retrying and missing recoverable errors.

This study addresses this gap by proposing a "smart" retry mechanism for JUnit-based API tests, enhanced by machine learning. The objective is to minimize false failures while optimizing performance, validated through empirical research across diverse test scenarios. The paper outlines the research methodology, analyzes existing solutions, introduces an innovative approach, and evaluates its effectiveness.

Related Work

Several sources discuss retry mechanisms in automated testing:

• Awaitility [awaitility] provides conditional waiting but lacks dynamic failure analysis.

• Resilience4j [resilience4j] offers retry and circuit-breaking features, though it is primarily designed for production resilience rather than testing.

• TestNG RetryAnalyzer [testng] supports static retry policies but lacks adaptability.

• Automation Panda [automationpanda] highlights the value of retries in improving test stability but notes their potential misuse without proper context, suggesting a need for adaptive strategies.

• The Green Report [thegreenreport] details retry patterns to enhance automation reliability, emphasizing dynamic adjustments based on system conditions, though manual configuration is often required.

• GeeksforGeeks [geeksforgeeks] explores the retry pattern in microservices, indicating its relevance for API testing, but points out limitations in CI/CD integration for scalable deployment.

These sources suggest that adaptive retry mechanisms can improve testing outcomes, yet they often require manual tuning and lack seamless CI/CD integration, motivating the development of our machine learning-enhanced solution.

Methodology

Problem Definition

The goal is to create a retry mechanism that distinguishes transient from persistent failures, predicting retry success using historical and real-time data.

Machine Learning Model Development and Deployment

The core of the "smart" retry mechanism relies on a machine learning model to predict the likelihood of a successful retry. This model is implemented as a separate Python-based microservice, which is queried by the JUnit [junit5] extension via HTTP. Below, we detail the process of creating, training, and deploying this model.

Model Placement

The model is hosted as a microservice, accessible via an endpoint such as http://localhost:5000/predict (default in the code) or a remote server address (e.g., an AWS EC2 instance or Google* Cloud Run). This separation allows independent updates and scalability, ensuring the testing framework remains unaffected by model maintenance.

Steps to Create and Train the Model

1. Environment Setup:

• Install Python [python] (version 3.8 or higher) and required libraries: scikit-learn for modeling, flask or fastapi for API creation, pandas for data handling, and joblib for model persistence.

• Create a virtual environment (venv or virtualenv) to isolate dependencies.

2, Data Collection:

• Gather historical API test data, including:

  • Server response time (in milliseconds).

  • Error codes (e.g., 500, 502, 503, 401, 403, 404).

  • Number of previous retry attempts.

  • Historical failure rate per endpoint.

• Source data from test logs (e.g., via SLF4J [slf4j] or Prometheus [prometheus]) or simulate it using existing APIs.

• Define the target variable as a binary outcome (1 for successful retry, 0 for failure) based on historical results.

3. Model Training:

• Develop a Python script to train a logistic regression model. Example:

Figure 1. Logistic regression code for predicting the success of operations

3. • Train on a dataset (e.g., 10,000 records) and save the model to a file (e.g., retry_model.pkl).

4. Microservice Creation:

• Use Flask [flask] to create a simple API. Example:

Figure 2. Flask application for API predicting the success of operations

4. • This code accepts JSON input, computes the success probability, and returns it.

5. Deployment:

• Locally: Run the script on a local machine with port 5000 open.

• In the Cloud: Deploy on platforms like Heroku [heroku], AWS Elastic Beanstalk [awselasticbeanstalk], or Docker [docker]. For Docker, create a Dockerfile:

Figure 3. Dockerfile for containerizing a Flask application

5. • Build and run: docker build -t retry-model . and docker run -p 5000:5000 retry-model.

6. Integration:

• Update MachineLearningService with the correct endpoint URL and ensure network access.

This process ensures the model is trainable, deployable, and integrable, forming the foundation for the smart retry mechanism.

Innovative Approach

The innovation lies in combining:

• Context-Aware Retries: Dynamic adjustment based on error type and historical data.

• Machine Learning Integration: Predictive modeling to reduce unnecessary retries.

• CI/CD Compatibility: Seamless integration with Jenkins [jenkins] for real-time monitoring.

This approach addresses limitations of static retries by adapting to API behavior and leveraging historical insights.

Implementation

Smart Retry Extension Class

The Smart Retry Extension integrates the model into JUnit. Below is the implementation:

Figure 4. JUnit 5 extension for intelligent test reruns

MachineLearningService Class

The MachineLearningService is a Java wrapper for the Python microservice. Its implementation includes:

Figure 5. A client for interacting with the machine learning API

Experiment

Design

The experiment involved a microservices project with 15 services and 300 API endpoints, testing 1000 cases in Jenkins. Three configurations were tested:

• Baseline: No retries.
• Static Retries: 3 attempts with 1-second delay.
• Smart Retries: Proposed mechanism.

Metrics

• False Failures: Number of tests failing due to transient issues.
• Execution Time: Total runtime in minutes.
• Retry Efficiency: Average retries per test.

Results

Table 1.

Comparison of approaches to handling temporary failures in microservice testing

Discussion

Analysis. The analysis of the smart retry mechanism demonstrates its superiority over static methods by dynamically adapting to failure contexts, significantly reducing over-retrying and unnecessary delays. The 88% accuracy of the machine learning model underscores its predictive capability, enabling informed retry decisions. However, the initial data collection phase poses a challenge, requiring substantial historical data to train the model effectively. This dependency could limit adoption in projects with limited historical records.

Limitations. The approach has several limitations: it requires a robust dataset for initial training, which may not be readily available in all environments; potential latency from microservice calls could impact real-time testing performance; and its effectiveness is contingent on stable network access to the machine learning endpoint. These factors suggest areas for further optimization.

Threats to Validity

The experiment’s validity is constrained by its focus on a single project with 15 microservices and 300 endpoints. Broader validation across diverse systems is needed to generalize the findings. Additionally, network conditions were partially controlled, which may not fully reflect real-world variability, potentially affecting the reliability of the results.

Practical Significance

The smart retry mechanism enhances test reliability by minimizing false failures, thereby reducing the manual debugging efforts typically required in automated testing workflows. Its scalability is demonstrated through configurable parameters and seamless integration with Jenkins CI/CD pipelines, as evidenced by successful deployment in a 5000-endpoint project. This adaptability makes it a valuable tool for large-scale microservices architectures, where transient failures are common, offering a practical solution for continuous integration and delivery environments.

Conclusion

This study presents a machine learning-enhanced retry mechanism for JUnit-based API testing, achieving a 40% reduction in false failures with only a 4% increase in execution time. The innovative use of context-aware predictions, powered by a logistic regression model, and its integration with CI/CD pipelines provide a scalable and efficient solution. Future work will explore the application of deep learning models to further improve prediction accuracy and investigate cloud-based deployment options to enhance accessibility and performance.

References:

1. Automation Panda: [automationpanda] // Are Automated Test Retries Good or Bad? – 2021. – Retrived from: https://automationpanda.com/2021/06/14/are-automated-test-retries-good-or-bad/ (accessed date: 01.08.2025).
2. Awaitility Documentation: [awaitility]. – Retrived from: https://awaitility.org/ (accessed date: 02.08.2025).
3. AWS: [awselasticbeanstalk] // Elastic Beanstalk Documentation. – Retrived from: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/ (accessed date: 03.08.2025).
4. Docker Documentation: [docker]. – Retrived from: https://docs.docker.com/ (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
5. Documentation: [resilience4j]. – Retrived from: https://resilience4j.readme.io/ TestNG Documentation [testng]. – Retrived from: https://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
6. Flask Documentation: [flask]. – Retrived from:  https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/3.0.x/ (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
7. GeeksforGeeks: [geeksforgeeks] // Retry Pattern in Microservices. – 2024. – Retrived from: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/system-design/retry-pattern-in-microservices/ (accessed date: 25.07.2025).
8. Heroku Dev Center: [heroku]. – Retrived from: https://devcenter.heroku.com/ (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
9. Java HTTP Client Documentation: [httpclient]. – Retrived from:   https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.net.http/java/net/http/HttpClient.html (accessed date: 22.07.2025).
10. Java SE Documentation: [java] // Oracle. – Retrived from: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/ (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
11. Jenkins Documentation: [jenkins]. – Retrived from: https://www.jenkins.io/doc/ (accessed date: 12.07.2025).
12. JUnit: [junit5] // 5 User Guide. – Retrived from: https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/ (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
13. Prometheus Documentation: [prometheus]. – Retrived from:  https://prometheus.io/docs/introduction/overview/ (accessed date: 03.08.2025).
14. Python Documentation: [python]. – Retrived from:  https://docs.python.org/3/ (accessed date: 05.08.2025).
15. Scikit-learn Documentation: [scikit-learn]. – Retrived from:  https://scikit-learn.org/stable/ (accessed date: 04.08.2025).
16. SLF4J : [slf4j] // Simple Logging Facade for Java, https://www.slf4j.org/ (accessed date: 02.08.2025).
17. The Green Report: [thegreenreport] // Enhancing Automation Reliability with Retry Patterns. – 2023. – Retrived from:  https://www.thegreenreport.blog/articles/enhancing-automation-reliability-with-retry-patterns/enhancing-automation-reliability-with-retry-patterns.html (accessed date: 27.07.2025).

*По требованию Роскомнадзора информируем, что иностранное лицо, владеющее информационными ресурсами Google является нарушителем законодательства Российской Федерации – прим. ред.