An experimental comparison of four unit test criteria: Mutation, edge-pair, all-uses and prime path coverage

IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops, ICSTW 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 220-229

  Li, Nan ^a   Praphamontripong, Upsorn ^a   Offutt, Jeff ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGILE PROCESS; COST BENEFIT RATIO; EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON; JAVA CLASS; MUTATION TESTING; PATH COVERAGE; TEST CRITERIA; TEST DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT; TEST REQUIREMENTS; UNIT TESTING; UNIT TESTS;

HAND TOOLS; SOFTWARE TESTING; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS; TESTING; VERIFICATION;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 69949099871     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ICSTW.2009.30     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt. Introduction to Software Testing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008. ISBN 0-52188-038-1.
2. Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt. Introduction to software testing website. Online, 2008. http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/softwaretest/, last access January 2009.
3. Paul Ammann, Jeff Offutt, and Wuzhi Xu. Coverage computation web applications. Online, 2008. http://cs.gmu.edu:8080/offutt/coverage/, last access January 2009.
4. Special Interest Group in Software Testing British Computer Society. Standard for Software Component Testing, Working Draft 3.3. British Computer Society, 1997. http://www.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk/~cised/sreid/BCS SIG/.
5. T. Chow. Testing software designs modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-4(3):178-187, May 1978.
6. Lori A. Clarke, Andy Podgurski, Debra J. Richardson, and Steven J. Zeil. A formal evaluation of data flow path selection criteria. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15:1318-1332, November 1989.
7. HarveyDeitel and Paul Deitel. Java: How to program. Pearson Education, Inc., sixth edition, 2005.
8. Phyllis G. Frankl and O. Iakounenko. Further studies of test effectiveness. In Sixth Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 153-162, Orlando, FL, November 1998. ACM SIGSOFT.
9. Phyllis G. Frankl and S. N. Weiss. An experimental comparison of the effectiveness of branch testing and data flow testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(8):774-787, August 1993.
10. Phyllis G. Frankl, Steven N.Weiss, and Cang Hu. Alluses versus mutation testing: An experimental comparison of effectiveness. The Journal of Systems and Software, 38(3):235-253, 1997.
11. Phyllis G. Frankl and Elaine J. Weyuker. An applicable family of data flow testing criteria. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(10):1483-1498, October 1988.
12. P. Herman. A data flow analysis approach to program testing. Australian Computer Journal, 8(3):92-96, November 1976.
13. W. E. Howden. Reliability of the path analysis testing strategy. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2(3):208-215, September 1976.
14. J. C. Huang. An approach to program testing. ACM Computing Surveys, 7(3):113-128, September 1975.
15. Marlie Hutchins, H. Foster, Thomas Goradia, and Thomas Ostrand. Experiments on the effectiveness of dataflow- and controlflow-based test adequacy criteria. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 191-200, Sorrento, Italy, May 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press.
16. Janusz Laski and Bogdan Korel. A data flow oriented program testing strategy. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-9(3):347-354, May 1983.
17. Yu-Seung Ma, Jeff Offutt, and Yong-Rae Kwon. Mu-java : An automated class mutation system. Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 15(2):97-133, June 2005.
18. Yu-Seung Ma, Jeff Offutt, and Yong-Rae Kwon. muJava home page. Online, 2005. http://cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/mujava/, http://salmosa.kaist.ac.kr/LAB/MuJava/, last access December 2008.
19. Aditya P. Mathur and W. Eric Wong. An empirical comparison of data flow and mutation-based test adequacy criteria. Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 4(1):9-31, March 1994.
20. Aditya P. Mathur and W. Eric Wong. A theoretical comparison between mutation and data flow based test adequacy criteria. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM Conference on Computer Science, pages 38-45, Phoenix, Arizona, 1994.
21. S. C. Ntafos. On required element testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 10(6):795-803, Nov 1984.
22. Jeff Offutt, Shaoying Liu, Aynur Abdurazik, and Paul Ammann. Generating test data from state-based specifications. Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 13(1):25-53, March 2003.
23. Jeff Offutt, Jie Pan, Kanupriya Tewary, and Tong Zhang. An experimental evaluation of data flow and mutation testing. Software-Practice and Experience, 26(2):165-176, February 1996.
24. S. Pimont and J. C. Rault. A software reliability assessment based on a structural behavioral analysis of programs. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 486-491, San Francisco, CA, October 1976.
25. Sandra Rapps and Elaine J. Weyuker. Selecting software test data using data flow information. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 11(4):367-375, April 1985.
26. Elaine J. Weyuker. The cost of data flow testing: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(2):121-128, February 1990.
27. Elaine J. Weyuker, Stewart N. Weiss, and Richard G. Hamlet. Comparison of program testing strategies. In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Software Testing, Analysis, and Verification, pages 1-10, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, October 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press.