NDLI: Comparing non-adequate test suites using coverage criteria

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

Comparing non-adequate test suites using coverage criteria

Content Provider	ACM Digital Library
Author	Groce, Alex Zhang, Chaoqiang Marinov, Darko Gligoric, Milos Alipour, Mohammad Amin Sharma, Rohan
Abstract	A fundamental question in software testing research is how to compare test suites, often as a means for comparing test-generation techniques. Researchers frequently compare test suites by measuring their coverage. A coverage criterion C provides a set of test requirements and measures how many requirements a given suite satisfies. A suite that satisfies 100% of the (feasible) requirements is C-adequate. Previous rigorous evaluations of coverage criteria mostly focused on such adequate test suites: given criteria C and C′, are C-adequate suites (on average) more effective than C′-adequate suites? However, in many realistic cases producing adequate suites is impractical or even impossible. We present the first extensive study that evaluates coverage criteria for the common case of non-adequate test suites: given criteria C and C′, which one is better to use to compare test suites? Namely, if suites T1, T2 . . . Tn have coverage values c1, c2 . . . cn for C and c′1, c′2 . . . c′n for C′, is it better to compare suites based on c1, c2 . . . cn or based on c′1, c′ 2 . . . c′n? We evaluate a large set of plausible criteria, including statement and branch coverage, as well as stronger criteria used in recent studies. Two criteria perform best: branch coverage and an intra-procedural acyclic path coverage. .
Starting Page	302
Ending Page	313
Page Count	12
File Format	PDF
ISBN	9781450321594
DOI	10.1145/2483760.2483769
Language	English
Publisher	Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Publisher Date	2013-07-15
Publisher Place	New York
Access Restriction	Subscribed
Subject Keyword	Coverage criteria Non-adequate test suites
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

Guidelines for Coverage-Based Comparisons of Non-Adequate Test Suites

Comparing non-adequate test suites using. (2013).

AGuidelines for Coverage-Based Comparisons of Non-Adequate Test Suites

Guidelines for coverage-based comparisons of non-adequate test suites by.

Evaluating random mutant selection at class-level in projects with non-adequate test suites

Evaluating non-adequate test-case reduction

On Code Coverage of Extended FSM Based Test Suites: An Initial Assessment

Adequate monitoring of service compositions

Specification test coverage adequacy criteria = specification test generation inadequacy criteria (2004)

Comparing non-adequate test suites using coverage criteria

Similar Documents

Guidelines for Coverage-Based Comparisons of Non-Adequate Test Suites

Comparing non-adequate test suites using. (2013).

AGuidelines for Coverage-Based Comparisons of Non-Adequate Test Suites

Guidelines for coverage-based comparisons of non-adequate test suites by.

Evaluating random mutant selection at class-level in projects with non-adequate test suites

Evaluating non-adequate test-case reduction

On Code Coverage of Extended FSM Based Test Suites: An Initial Assessment

Adequate monitoring of service compositions

Specification test coverage adequacy criteria = specification test generation inadequacy criteria (2004)

Comparing non-adequate test suites using coverage criteria