Guided test generation for coverage criteria

IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Pandita, Rahul ^a   Xie, Tao ^a   Tillmann, Nikolai ^b   De Halleux, Jonathan ^b  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED TEST; BRANCH COVERAGE; COVERAGE CRITERIA; CRITICAL DOMAIN; EVALUATION RESULTS; GENERAL APPROACH; MODIFIED CONDITION/DECISION COVERAGES; ON DYNAMICS; SAFETY-CRITICAL; SUPPORT TESTING; TEST COVERAGE CRITERIA; TEST GENERATIONS; TEST INPUTS;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; FAULT DETECTION;

TESTING;

EID: 78650144392     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ICSM.2010.5609565     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. P. Ammann, J. Offutt, and H. Huang. Coverage criteria for logical expression. In Proc. ISSRE, pages 99-107, 2003.
2. J. H. Andrews, L. C. Briand, and Y. Labiche. Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? In Proc. ICSE, pages 402-411, 2005.
3. Z. Awedikian, K. Ayari, and G. Antoniol. MC/DC automatic test input data generation. In Proc. GECCO, pages 1657-1664, 2009.
4. B. Beizer and J. Wiley. Black box testing: Techniques for functional testing of software and systems. IEEE Software, 13(5):98, 1996.
5. J. Burnim and K.Sen. Heuristics for scalable dynamic test generation. In Proc. ASE, pages 443-446, 2008.
6. Caramel Engine. http://caramelengine.codeplex.com/.
7. Common Compiler Infrastructure, 2009. http://cciast.codeplex.com/.
8. R. DeMillo, R. Lipton, and F. Sayward. Hints on test data selection: Help for the practicing programmer. In IEEE Comput., vol. 11, No. 4, pages 34-41, 1978.
9. P. Godefroid, N. Klarlund, and K. Sen. DART: Directed automated random testing. In Proc. PLDI, pages 75-84, 2005.
10. D. Hoffman, P. Strooper, and L. White. Boundary values and automated component testing. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 9(1):3-26, 1999.
11. M. Hutchins, H. Foster, T. Goradia, and T. Ostrand. Experiments of the effectiveness of dataflow-and controlflow-based test adequacy criteria. In Proc. ICSE, pages 191-200, 1994.
12. Java 2 CSharp Translator for Eclipse. http://sourceforge.net/projects/ j2cstranslator/.
13. B. Jeng and E. J. Weyuker. A simplified domain-testing strategy. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 3(3):254-270, 1994.
14. J. C. King. Symbolic execution and program testing. In Commun. ACM, 19(7), pages 385-394, 1976.
15. N. Kosmatov, B. Legeard, F. Peureux, and M. Utting. Boundary coverage criteria for test generation from formal models. In Proc. ISSRE, pages 139-150, 2004.
16. P. McMinn. Search-based software test data generation: a survey: Research articles. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 14(2):105-156, 2004.
17. A. J. Offutt and S. D. Lee. An empirical evaluation of weak mutation. IEEE Tran. Software Eng., vol. 20, No. 5, pages 337-344, 1994.
18. C. Pacheco, S. K. Lahiri, M. D. Ernst, and T. Ball. Feedback-directed random test generation. In Proc. ICSE, pages 75-84, 2007.
19. K. Sen, D. Marinov, and G. Agha. CUTE: A concolic unit testing engine for C. In Proc. ESEC/FSE, pages 263-272, 2005.
20. StringDefs, 2010. http://stringdefs.codeplex.com/.
21. Traffic Collision Avoidance System. http://sir.unl.edu/portal/bios/tcas. html.
22. N. Tillmann and J. de Halleux. Pex-white box test generation for .NET. In Proc. TAP, pages 134-153, 2008.
23. T. Xie, N. Tillmann, P. de Halleux, and W. Schulte. Fitness-guided path exploration in dynamic symbolic execution. In Proc. DSN, pages 359-368, 2009.