Android测试生成工具在工业案例中的实证研究

Wenyu Wang, Dengfeng Li, Wei Yang, Yurui Cao, Zhenwen Zhang, Yuetang Deng, Tao Xie
{"title":"Android测试生成工具在工业案例中的实证研究","authors":"Wenyu Wang, Dengfeng Li, Wei Yang, Yurui Cao, Zhenwen Zhang, Yuetang Deng, Tao Xie","doi":"10.1145/3238147.3240465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"User Interface (UI) testing is a popular approach to ensure the quality of mobile apps. Numerous test generation tools have been developed to support UI testing on mobile apps, especially for Android apps. Previous work evaluates and compares different test generation tools using only relatively simple open-source apps, while real-world industrial apps tend to have more complex functionalities and implementations. There is no direct comparison among test generation tools with regard to effectiveness and ease-of-use on these industrial apps. To address such limitation, we study existing state-of-the-art or state-of-the-practice test generation tools on 68 widely-used industrial apps. We directly compare the tools with regard to code coverage and fault-detection ability. According to our results, Monkey, a state-of-the-practice tool from Google, achieves the highest method coverage on 22 of 41 apps whose method coverage data can be obtained. Of all 68 apps under study, Monkey also achieves the highest activity coverage on 35 apps, while Stoat, a state-of-the-art tool, is able to trigger the highest number of unique crashes on 23 apps. By analyzing the experimental results, we provide suggestions for combining different test generation tools to achieve better performance. We also report our experience in applying these tools to industrial apps under study. Our study results give insights on how Android UI test generation tools could be improved to better handle complex industrial apps.","PeriodicalId":6622,"journal":{"name":"2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)","volume":"14 1","pages":"738-748"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"78","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Empirical Study of Android Test Generation Tools in Industrial Cases\",\"authors\":\"Wenyu Wang, Dengfeng Li, Wei Yang, Yurui Cao, Zhenwen Zhang, Yuetang Deng, Tao Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3238147.3240465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"User Interface (UI) testing is a popular approach to ensure the quality of mobile apps. Numerous test generation tools have been developed to support UI testing on mobile apps, especially for Android apps. Previous work evaluates and compares different test generation tools using only relatively simple open-source apps, while real-world industrial apps tend to have more complex functionalities and implementations. There is no direct comparison among test generation tools with regard to effectiveness and ease-of-use on these industrial apps. To address such limitation, we study existing state-of-the-art or state-of-the-practice test generation tools on 68 widely-used industrial apps. We directly compare the tools with regard to code coverage and fault-detection ability. According to our results, Monkey, a state-of-the-practice tool from Google, achieves the highest method coverage on 22 of 41 apps whose method coverage data can be obtained. Of all 68 apps under study, Monkey also achieves the highest activity coverage on 35 apps, while Stoat, a state-of-the-art tool, is able to trigger the highest number of unique crashes on 23 apps. By analyzing the experimental results, we provide suggestions for combining different test generation tools to achieve better performance. We also report our experience in applying these tools to industrial apps under study. Our study results give insights on how Android UI test generation tools could be improved to better handle complex industrial apps.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"738-748\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"78\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3238147.3240465\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3238147.3240465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 78

摘要

用户界面(UI)测试是一种确保移动应用质量的流行方法。已经开发了许多测试生成工具来支持移动应用程序(特别是Android应用程序)的UI测试。以前的工作只使用相对简单的开源应用程序来评估和比较不同的测试生成工具,而现实世界的工业应用程序往往具有更复杂的功能和实现。在这些工业应用程序的有效性和易用性方面,测试生成工具之间没有直接的比较。为了解决这一限制,我们研究了68个广泛使用的工业应用程序上现有的最先进或最先进的测试生成工具。我们直接比较了这些工具的代码覆盖率和故障检测能力。根据我们的结果,来自Google的最先进的工具Monkey在41个可以获得方法覆盖率数据的应用程序中的22个应用程序中实现了最高的方法覆盖率。在我们所研究的68款应用中,Monkey在35款应用中获得了最高的活跃覆盖率,而Stoat(一款最先进的工具)在23款应用中触发了最高的唯一崩溃次数。通过对实验结果的分析,提出了如何结合不同的测试生成工具来获得更好的性能的建议。我们还报告了将这些工具应用于正在研究的工业应用程序的经验。我们的研究结果为如何改进Android UI测试生成工具以更好地处理复杂的工业应用提供了见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Empirical Study of Android Test Generation Tools in Industrial Cases
User Interface (UI) testing is a popular approach to ensure the quality of mobile apps. Numerous test generation tools have been developed to support UI testing on mobile apps, especially for Android apps. Previous work evaluates and compares different test generation tools using only relatively simple open-source apps, while real-world industrial apps tend to have more complex functionalities and implementations. There is no direct comparison among test generation tools with regard to effectiveness and ease-of-use on these industrial apps. To address such limitation, we study existing state-of-the-art or state-of-the-practice test generation tools on 68 widely-used industrial apps. We directly compare the tools with regard to code coverage and fault-detection ability. According to our results, Monkey, a state-of-the-practice tool from Google, achieves the highest method coverage on 22 of 41 apps whose method coverage data can be obtained. Of all 68 apps under study, Monkey also achieves the highest activity coverage on 35 apps, while Stoat, a state-of-the-art tool, is able to trigger the highest number of unique crashes on 23 apps. By analyzing the experimental results, we provide suggestions for combining different test generation tools to achieve better performance. We also report our experience in applying these tools to industrial apps under study. Our study results give insights on how Android UI test generation tools could be improved to better handle complex industrial apps.
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