比较转换树测试套件对不同突变操作符的有效性

H. Khalil, Y. Labiche
{"title":"比较转换树测试套件对不同突变操作符的有效性","authors":"H. Khalil, Y. Labiche","doi":"10.1145/3412452.3423571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research demonstrated that faults seeded mutation using operators can be representative of faults in real systems. In this paper, we study the relationship between the different operators used to insert mutants in the fault domain of the system under test and the effectiveness of different state machine test suites at killing those mutants. We are particularly interested in the effectiveness of two interrelated state machine testing strategies at finding different types of faults. Those are the round-trip paths strategy and the transition tree strategy. Using empirical evaluation, we compare the effectiveness of more than two thousand unique test suites at killing mutants seeded using eight different mutation operators. We perform experiments on four experimental objects and provide qualitative analysis of the results. We conclude that neither of the two studied strategies is more effective than the other at killing a certain type of mutants. However, the structure of the finite state machine and the nature of the system under test affect the type of faults detected by the different testing strategies.","PeriodicalId":163705,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Automating TEST Case Design, Selection, and Evaluation","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing transition trees test suites effectiveness for different mutation operators\",\"authors\":\"H. Khalil, Y. Labiche\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3412452.3423571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research demonstrated that faults seeded mutation using operators can be representative of faults in real systems. In this paper, we study the relationship between the different operators used to insert mutants in the fault domain of the system under test and the effectiveness of different state machine test suites at killing those mutants. We are particularly interested in the effectiveness of two interrelated state machine testing strategies at finding different types of faults. Those are the round-trip paths strategy and the transition tree strategy. Using empirical evaluation, we compare the effectiveness of more than two thousand unique test suites at killing mutants seeded using eight different mutation operators. We perform experiments on four experimental objects and provide qualitative analysis of the results. We conclude that neither of the two studied strategies is more effective than the other at killing a certain type of mutants. However, the structure of the finite state machine and the nature of the system under test affect the type of faults detected by the different testing strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":163705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Automating TEST Case Design, Selection, and Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Automating TEST Case Design, Selection, and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3412452.3423571\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Automating TEST Case Design, Selection, and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3412452.3423571","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究表明,基于算子的故障种子突变能够很好地代表实际系统中的故障。本文研究了用于在被测系统故障域中插入突变体的不同操作符之间的关系,以及不同状态机测试套件在杀死这些突变体时的有效性。我们对两种相互关联的状态机测试策略在发现不同类型故障方面的有效性特别感兴趣。它们是往返路径策略和转换树策略。使用经验评估,我们比较了超过2000个独特的测试套件在使用八种不同的突变操作符杀死突变体的有效性。我们在四个实验对象上进行实验,并对结果进行定性分析。我们得出的结论是,这两种研究策略在杀死某种类型的突变体方面都没有比另一种更有效。然而,有限状态机的结构和被测系统的性质影响了不同测试策略所检测到的故障类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing transition trees test suites effectiveness for different mutation operators
Research demonstrated that faults seeded mutation using operators can be representative of faults in real systems. In this paper, we study the relationship between the different operators used to insert mutants in the fault domain of the system under test and the effectiveness of different state machine test suites at killing those mutants. We are particularly interested in the effectiveness of two interrelated state machine testing strategies at finding different types of faults. Those are the round-trip paths strategy and the transition tree strategy. Using empirical evaluation, we compare the effectiveness of more than two thousand unique test suites at killing mutants seeded using eight different mutation operators. We perform experiments on four experimental objects and provide qualitative analysis of the results. We conclude that neither of the two studied strategies is more effective than the other at killing a certain type of mutants. However, the structure of the finite state machine and the nature of the system under test affect the type of faults detected by the different testing strategies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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