Using Controlled Numbers of Real Faults and Mutants to Empirically Evaluate Coverage-Based Test Case Prioritization

David Paterson, G. M. Kapfhammer, G. Fraser, Phil McMinn
{"title":"Using Controlled Numbers of Real Faults and Mutants to Empirically Evaluate Coverage-Based Test Case Prioritization","authors":"David Paterson, G. M. Kapfhammer, G. Fraser, Phil McMinn","doi":"10.1145/3194733.3194735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Used to establish confidence in the correctness of evolving software, regression testing is an important, yet costly, task. Test case prioritization enables the rapid detection of faults during regression testing by reordering the test suite so that effective tests are run as early as is possible. However, a distinct lack of information about the regression faults found in complex real-world software forced prior experimental studies of these methods to use artificial faults called mutants. Using the Defects4J database of real faults, this paper presents the results of experiments evaluating the effectiveness of four representative test prioritization techniques. Since this paper’s results show that prioritization is susceptible to high amounts of variance when only one fault is present, our experiments also control the number of real faults and mutants in the program subject to regression testing. Our overall findings are that, in comparison to mutants, real faults are harder for reordered test suites to quickly detect, suggesting that mutants are not a surrogate for real faults.","PeriodicalId":423703,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE/ACM 13th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST)","volume":"135 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE/ACM 13th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3194733.3194735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Used to establish confidence in the correctness of evolving software, regression testing is an important, yet costly, task. Test case prioritization enables the rapid detection of faults during regression testing by reordering the test suite so that effective tests are run as early as is possible. However, a distinct lack of information about the regression faults found in complex real-world software forced prior experimental studies of these methods to use artificial faults called mutants. Using the Defects4J database of real faults, this paper presents the results of experiments evaluating the effectiveness of four representative test prioritization techniques. Since this paper’s results show that prioritization is susceptible to high amounts of variance when only one fault is present, our experiments also control the number of real faults and mutants in the program subject to regression testing. Our overall findings are that, in comparison to mutants, real faults are harder for reordered test suites to quickly detect, suggesting that mutants are not a surrogate for real faults.
使用控制数量的真实故障和突变来经验性地评估基于覆盖率的测试用例优先级
回归测试用于建立对不断发展的软件正确性的信心,是一项重要但代价高昂的任务。通过重新排序测试套件,测试用例优先级可以在回归测试期间快速检测故障,以便尽可能早地运行有效的测试。然而,在复杂的现实世界软件中发现的回归错误的信息明显缺乏,迫使这些方法的先前实验研究使用称为突变的人工错误。利用缺陷4j真实故障数据库,给出了四种具有代表性的测试优先化技术的有效性评价实验结果。由于本文的结果表明,当只有一个故障存在时,优先级易受大量方差的影响,因此我们的实验还控制了回归测试中程序中实际故障和突变的数量。我们的总体发现是,与突变相比,重新排序的测试套件很难快速检测到真正的错误,这表明突变不是真正错误的替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信