白盒和黑盒测试优先级的比较

Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, M. Harman, Yue Jia, Yves Le Traon
{"title":"白盒和黑盒测试优先级的比较","authors":"Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, M. Harman, Yue Jia, Yves Le Traon","doi":"10.1145/2884781.2884791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although white-box regression test prioritization has been well-studied, the more recently introduced black-box prioritization approaches have neither been compared against each other nor against more well-established white-box techniques. We present a comprehensive experimental comparison of several test prioritization techniques, including well-established white-box strategies and more recently introduced black-box approaches. We found that Combinatorial Interaction Testing and diversity-based techniques (Input Model Diversity and Input Test Set Diameter) perform best among the black-box approaches. Perhaps surprisingly, we found little difference between black-box and white-box performance (at most 4% fault detection rate difference). We also found the overlap between black- and white-box faults to be high: the first 10% of the prioritized test suites already agree on at least 60% of the faults found. These are positive findings for practicing regression testers who may not have source code available, thereby making white-box techniques inapplicable. We also found evidence that both black-box and white-box prioritization remain robust over multiple system releases.","PeriodicalId":6485,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"15 1","pages":"523-534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"167","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing White-Box and Black-Box Test Prioritization\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, M. Harman, Yue Jia, Yves Le Traon\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2884781.2884791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although white-box regression test prioritization has been well-studied, the more recently introduced black-box prioritization approaches have neither been compared against each other nor against more well-established white-box techniques. We present a comprehensive experimental comparison of several test prioritization techniques, including well-established white-box strategies and more recently introduced black-box approaches. We found that Combinatorial Interaction Testing and diversity-based techniques (Input Model Diversity and Input Test Set Diameter) perform best among the black-box approaches. Perhaps surprisingly, we found little difference between black-box and white-box performance (at most 4% fault detection rate difference). We also found the overlap between black- and white-box faults to be high: the first 10% of the prioritized test suites already agree on at least 60% of the faults found. These are positive findings for practicing regression testers who may not have source code available, thereby making white-box techniques inapplicable. We also found evidence that both black-box and white-box prioritization remain robust over multiple system releases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"523-534\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"167\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 167

摘要

尽管白盒回归测试优先级已经得到了很好的研究,但最近引入的黑盒优先级方法既没有相互比较,也没有与更完善的白盒技术进行比较。我们提出了几种测试优先级技术的综合实验比较,包括完善的白盒策略和最近引入的黑盒方法。我们发现组合交互测试和基于多样性的技术(输入模型多样性和输入测试集直径)在黑盒方法中表现最好。也许令人惊讶的是,我们发现黑盒和白盒性能之间的差异很小(最多只有4%的故障检测率差异)。我们还发现黑盒和白盒错误之间的重叠是很高的:前10%的优先级测试套件已经在发现的至少60%的错误上达成一致。对于没有可用源代码的回归测试人员来说,这些都是积极的发现,因此使得白盒技术不适用。我们还发现证据表明,黑盒和白盒优先级在多个系统发布中仍然是健壮的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing White-Box and Black-Box Test Prioritization
Although white-box regression test prioritization has been well-studied, the more recently introduced black-box prioritization approaches have neither been compared against each other nor against more well-established white-box techniques. We present a comprehensive experimental comparison of several test prioritization techniques, including well-established white-box strategies and more recently introduced black-box approaches. We found that Combinatorial Interaction Testing and diversity-based techniques (Input Model Diversity and Input Test Set Diameter) perform best among the black-box approaches. Perhaps surprisingly, we found little difference between black-box and white-box performance (at most 4% fault detection rate difference). We also found the overlap between black- and white-box faults to be high: the first 10% of the prioritized test suites already agree on at least 60% of the faults found. These are positive findings for practicing regression testers who may not have source code available, thereby making white-box techniques inapplicable. We also found evidence that both black-box and white-box prioritization remain robust over multiple system releases.
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