{"title":"In vivo testing and integration of proving and testing","authors":"Yves Le Traon, Tao Xie","doi":"10.1002/stvr.1866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this issue, we are pleased to present two papers, one for in vivo testing and the other for integration of proving and testing. The first paper, ‘In vivo test and rollback of Java applications as they are’ by Antonia Bertolino, Guglielmo De Angelis, Breno Miranda and Paolo Tonella, presents the Groucho approach for in vivo testing, a specific kind of field software testing where testing activities are launched directly in the production environment during actual end-user sessions. The Groucho approach conducts in vivo testing of Java applications transparently, not necessarily requiring any source code modification nor even source code availability. Being an unobtrusive field testing framework, Groucho adopts a fully automated ‘test and rollback’ strategy. The empirical evaluations of Groucho show that its performance overhead can be kept to a negligible level by activating in vivo testing with low probability, along with showing the existence of faults that are unlikely exposed in-house and become easy to expose in the field and showing the quantified coverage increase gained when in vivo testing is added to complement in house testing. (Recommended by Xiaoyin Wang). The second paper, ‘A failed proof can yield a useful test’ by Li Huang and Bertrand Meyer, presents the Proof2Test tool, which takes advantage of the rich information that some automatic provers internally collect about the programme when attempting a proof. When the proof fails, Proof2Test uses the counterexample generated by the prover to produce a failed test, which provides the programmer with immediately exploitable information to correct the programme. The key assumption behind Proof2Test is that programme proofs (static) and programme tests (dynamic) are complementary rather than exclusive: proofs bring the absolute certainties that tests lack but are abstract and hard to get right; tests cannot guarantee correctness but, when they fail, bring the concreteness of counterexamples, immediately understandable to the programmer. (Recommended by Marcelo d'Amorim). We hope that these papers will inspire further research in related directions.","PeriodicalId":49506,"journal":{"name":"Software Testing Verification & Reliability","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Software Testing Verification & Reliability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1866","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this issue, we are pleased to present two papers, one for in vivo testing and the other for integration of proving and testing. The first paper, ‘In vivo test and rollback of Java applications as they are’ by Antonia Bertolino, Guglielmo De Angelis, Breno Miranda and Paolo Tonella, presents the Groucho approach for in vivo testing, a specific kind of field software testing where testing activities are launched directly in the production environment during actual end-user sessions. The Groucho approach conducts in vivo testing of Java applications transparently, not necessarily requiring any source code modification nor even source code availability. Being an unobtrusive field testing framework, Groucho adopts a fully automated ‘test and rollback’ strategy. The empirical evaluations of Groucho show that its performance overhead can be kept to a negligible level by activating in vivo testing with low probability, along with showing the existence of faults that are unlikely exposed in-house and become easy to expose in the field and showing the quantified coverage increase gained when in vivo testing is added to complement in house testing. (Recommended by Xiaoyin Wang). The second paper, ‘A failed proof can yield a useful test’ by Li Huang and Bertrand Meyer, presents the Proof2Test tool, which takes advantage of the rich information that some automatic provers internally collect about the programme when attempting a proof. When the proof fails, Proof2Test uses the counterexample generated by the prover to produce a failed test, which provides the programmer with immediately exploitable information to correct the programme. The key assumption behind Proof2Test is that programme proofs (static) and programme tests (dynamic) are complementary rather than exclusive: proofs bring the absolute certainties that tests lack but are abstract and hard to get right; tests cannot guarantee correctness but, when they fail, bring the concreteness of counterexamples, immediately understandable to the programmer. (Recommended by Marcelo d'Amorim). We hope that these papers will inspire further research in related directions.
期刊介绍:
The journal is the premier outlet for research results on the subjects of testing, verification and reliability. Readers will find useful research on issues pertaining to building better software and evaluating it.
The journal is unique in its emphasis on theoretical foundations and applications to real-world software development. The balance of theory, empirical work, and practical applications provide readers with better techniques for testing, verifying and improving the reliability of software.
The journal targets researchers, practitioners, educators and students that have a vested interest in results generated by high-quality testing, verification and reliability modeling and evaluation of software. Topics of special interest include, but are not limited to:
-New criteria for software testing and verification
-Application of existing software testing and verification techniques to new types of software, including web applications, web services, embedded software, aspect-oriented software, and software architectures
-Model based testing
-Formal verification techniques such as model-checking
-Comparison of testing and verification techniques
-Measurement of and metrics for testing, verification and reliability
-Industrial experience with cutting edge techniques
-Descriptions and evaluations of commercial and open-source software testing tools
-Reliability modeling, measurement and application
-Testing and verification of software security
-Automated test data generation
-Process issues and methods
-Non-functional testing