NDLI: Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers?

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Expressing and checking intended changes via software change contracts

Efficient and flexible GUI test execution via test merging

Calculating source line level energy information for Android applications

Dynamically validating static memory leak warnings

Variable and thread bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs

Using automated program repair for evaluating the effectiveness of fault localization techniques

Selective mutation testing for concurrent code

Orthogonal exploration of the search space in evolutionary test case generation

Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers?

An empirical study of PHP feature usage: a static analysis perspective

Debugging non-deadlock concurrency bugs

Generation of test databases using sampling methods

Product-line verification with feature-oriented contracts

Finding rare numerical stability errors in concurrent computations

Automatically repairing broken workflows for evolving GUI applications

Context-sensitive delta inference for identifying workload-dependent performance bottlenecks

Collecting a heap of shapes

EnforceMOP: a runtime property enforcement system for multithreaded programs

Data model property inference and repair

Faster mutation testing inspired by test prioritization and reduction

Hybrid learning: interface generation through static, dynamic, and symbolic analysis

Comparing non-adequate test suites using coverage criteria

Practical blended taint analysis for JavaScript

Generation of Java programs properties from test purposes

Analysis of performance regression testing data by transaction profiles

Formal safety proof: a real case study in a railway interlocking system

Parallel bounded analysis in code with rich invariants by refinement of field bounds

Semi-valid input coverage for fuzz testing

Combining model checking and testing with an application to reliability prediction and distribution

Griffin: grouping suspicious memory-access patterns to improve understanding of concurrency bugs

SimRacer: an automated framework to support testing for process-level races

F3: fault localization for field failures

Declarative mocking

Optimizing monitoring of finite state properties through monitor compaction

Threats to the validity and value of empirical assessments of the accuracy of coverage-based fault locators

Finding your way in the testing jungle: a learning approach to web security testing

Automated testing with targeted event sequence generation

Practical static race detection for Java parallel loops

Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers?

Content Provider	ACM Digital Library
Author	Fraser, Gordon Padberg, Frank McMinn, Phil Arcuri, Andrea Staats, Matt
Abstract	Automated test generation techniques can efficiently produce test data that systematically cover structural aspects of a program. In the absence of a specification, a common assumption is that these tests relieve a developer of most of the work, as the act of testing is reduced to checking the results of the tests. Although this assumption has persisted for decades, there has been no conclusive evidence to date confirming it. However, the fact that the approach has only seen a limited uptake in industry suggests the contrary, and calls into question its practical usefulness. To investigate this issue, we performed a controlled experiment comparing a total of 49 subjects split between writing tests manually and writing tests with the aid of an automated unit test generation tool, EvoSuite. We found that, on one hand, tool support leads to clear improvements in commonly applied quality metrics such as code coverage (up to 300% increase). However, on the other hand, there was no measurable improvement in the number of bugs actually found by developers. Our results not only cast some doubt on how the research community evaluates test generation tools, but also point to improvements and future work necessary before automated test generation tools will be widely adopted by practitioners. .
Starting Page	291
Ending Page	301
Page Count	11
File Format	PDF
ISBN	9781450321594
DOI	10.1145/2483760.2483774
Language	English
Publisher	Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Publisher Date	2013-07-15
Publisher Place	New York
Access Restriction	Subscribed
Subject Keyword	Empirical software engineering Automated test generation Unit testing Branch coverage
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Does Automated Unit Test Generation Really Help Software Testers? A Controlled Empirical Study

Does Automated White-Box Test Generation Really Help Software Testers?

ADoes Automated Unit Test Generation Really Help Software Testers? A Controlled Empirical Study

A Large-Scale Evaluation of Automated Unit Test Generation Using EvoSuite

Automated software test tool (1997).

Verification-Based Test Case Generation for Full Feasible Branch Coverage

Teaching automated test case generation

An All-in-One Toolkit for Automated White-Box Testing⋆

Assertion-oriented automated test data generation

Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers?

Similar Documents

Does Automated Unit Test Generation Really Help Software Testers? A Controlled Empirical Study

Does Automated White-Box Test Generation Really Help Software Testers?

ADoes Automated Unit Test Generation Really Help Software Testers? A Controlled Empirical Study

A Large-Scale Evaluation of Automated Unit Test Generation Using EvoSuite

Automated software test tool (1997).

Verification-Based Test Case Generation for Full Feasible Branch Coverage

Teaching automated test case generation

An All-in-One Toolkit for Automated White-Box Testing⋆

Assertion-oriented automated test data generation

Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers?