Available soon...

Available soon...

Available soon...

Regression testing is an important activity in the software life cycle, but it can also be very expensive. To reduce the cost of regression testing, software testers may prioritize their test cases so that those which are more important, by some measure, are run earlier in the regression testing process. One potential goal of test case prioritization techniques is to increase a test suite's rate of fault detection (how quickly, in a run of its test cases, that test suite can detect faults). Previous work has shown that prioritization can improve a test suite's rate of fault detection, but the assessment of prioritization techniques has been limited primarily to hand-seeded faults, largely due to the belief that such faults are more realistic than automatically generated (mutation) faults. A recent empirical study, however, suggests that mutation faults can be representative of real faults and that the use of hand-seeded faults can be problematic for the validity of empirical results focusing on fault detection. We have therefore designed and performed two controlled experiments assessing the ability of prioritization techniques to improve the rate of fault detection of test case prioritization techniques, measured relative to mutation faults. Our results show that prioritization can be effective relative to the faults considered, and they expose ways in which that effectiveness can vary with characteristics of faults and test suites. More importantly, a comparison of our results with those collected using hand-seeded faults reveals several implications for researchers performing empirical studies of test case prioritization techniques in particular and testing techniques in general.

Available soon...

Available soon...

Code-coverage-based test data adequacy criteria typically treat all coverable code elements (such as statements, basic blocks or outcomes of decisions) as equal. In practice, however, the probability that a test case can expose a fault in a code element varies: some faults are more easily revealed than others. Thus, several researchers have suggested that if one could estimate the probability that a fault in a code element will cause a failure, one could use this estimate to determine the number of executions of a code element that are required to achieve a certain level of confidence in that element's correctness. This estimate, in turn, could be used to improve the fault-detection effectiveness of test suites and help testers distribute testing resources more effectively. This conjecture is intriguing; however, like many such conjectures it has never been directly examined empirically. If empirical evidence were to support this conjecture, it would motivate further research into methodologies for obtaining fault-exposure-potential estimates and incorporating them into test data adequacy criteria. This paper reports the results of experiments conducted to investigate the effects of incorporating an estimate of fault-exposure probability into the statement coverage test data adequacy criterion. The results of these experiments, however, ran contrary to the conjectures of previous researchers. Although incorporation of the estimates did produce statistically significant increases in the fault-detection effectiveness of test suites, these increases were quite small, suggesting that the approach might not be able to produce the gains hoped for and might not be worth the cost of its employment.

Available soon...

Available soon...

Mutation testing is a technique for unit testing software that, although powerful, is computationally expensive. The principal expense of mutation is that many variants of the test program, called mutants, must be repeatedly executed. This paper quanti es the expense of mutation in terms of the number of mutants that are created, then proposes and evaluates a technique that reduces the number of mutants by an order of magnitude. Selective mutation reduces the cost of mutation testing by reducing the number of mutants. This paper reports experimental results that compare selective mutation testing with standard, or non-selective, mutation testing, and results that quantify the savings achieved by selective mutation testing. The results support the hypothesis that selective mutation is almost as strong as non-selective mutation; in experimental trials selective mutation provides almost the same coverage as non-selective mutation, with a four-fold or more reduction in the number of mutants.

Available soon...