Software testing

Authors: Oscar Luis Vera-Pérez, Benjamin Danglot, Martin Monperrus and Benoit Baudry

Venue: ArXiv preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04770

Publication date: September 10, 2019

Abstract: An extreme transformation removes the body of a method that is reached by one test case at least. If the test suite passes on the original program and still passes after the extreme transformation, the transformation is said to be undetected, and the test suite needs to be improved. In this work we propose a technique to automatically determine which of the following three reasons prevent the detection of the extreme transformation is : the test inputs are not sufficient to infect the state of the program; the infection does not propagate to the test cases; the test cases have a weak oracle that does not observe the infection. We have developed Reneri, a tool that observes the program under test and the test suite in order to determine runtime differences between test runs on the original and the transformed method. The observations gathered during the analysis are processed by Reneri to suggest possible improvements to the developers. We evaluate Reneri on 15 projects and a total of 312 undetected extreme transformations. The tool is able to generate a suggestion for each each undetected transformation. For 63% of the cases, the existing test cases can infect the program state, meaning that undetected transformations are mostly due to observability and weak oracle issues. Interviews with developers confirm the relevance of the suggested improvements and experiments with state of the art automatic test generation tools indicate that no tool can improve the existing test suites to fix all undetected transformations.

Tags: Software testing test oracle test improvement reachability-infection-propagation extreme transformation

Authors: Oscar Luis Vera-Pérez, Benjamin Danglot, Martin Monperrus and Benoit Baudry

Venue: Empirical Software Engineering 24, 1195–1225 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9653-2

Publication date: September 19, 2018

Abstract: Pseudo-tested methods are defined as follows: they are covered by the test suite, yet no test case fails when the method body is removed, i.e., when all the effects of this method are suppressed. This intriguing concept was coined in 2016, by Niedermayr and colleagues, who showed that such methods are systematically present, even in well-tested projects with high statement coverage. This work presents a novel analysis of pseudo-tested methods. First, we run a replication of Niedermayr’s study with 28K+ methods, enhancing its external validity thanks to the use of new tools and new study subjects. Second, we perform a systematic characterization of these methods, both quantitatively and qualitatively with an extensive manual analysis of 101 pseudo-tested methods. The first part of the study confirms Niedermayr’s results: pseudo-tested methods exist in all our subjects. Our in-depth characterization of pseudo-tested methods leads to two key insights: pseudo-tested methods are significantly less tested than the other methods; yet, for most of them, the developers would not pay the testing price to fix this situation. This calls for future work on targeted test generation to specify those pseudo-tested methods without spending developer time.

Tags: Software testing Software developers Pseudo-tested methods Test quality Program analysis