Directed test suite augmentation: Techniques and tradeoffs

Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 257-266

  Xu, Zhihong ^a   Kim, Yunho ^b   Kim, Moonzoo ^b   Rothermel, Gregg ^a   Cohen, Myra B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

concolic testing; empirical studies; genetic algorithms; regression testing; test suite augmentation

Indexed keywords

AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES; CONCOLIC TESTING; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; GENETIC TESTS; PRIMARY FACTORS; REGRESSION TESTING; REGRESSION TESTS; TEST CASE; TEST CASE GENERATION; TEST SUITE AUGMENTATION;

GENETIC ALGORITHMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SOFTWARE TESTING;

TESTING;

EID: 78751495155     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1882291.1882330     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. A. Aho, R. Sethi, and J. Ullman. Compilers, Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 1986.
2. T. Apiwattanapong, R. Santelices, P. K. Chittimalli, A. Orso, and M. J. Harrold. Matrix: Maintenance-oriented testing requirements identifier and examiner. In Test.: Acad. Ind. Conf. Pract. Res. Techn., pages 137-146, Aug. 2006.
3. S. Artzi, A. Kiezun, J. Dolby, F. Tip, D. Dig, A. Paradkar, and M. D. Ernst. Finding bugs in dynamic web applications. In Proc. Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. and Anal., July 2008.
4. A. Baresel, D. Binkley, M. Harman, and B. Korel. Evolutionary testing in the presence of loop-assigned flags: a testability transformation approach. In Proc. Int'l. Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 108-118, July 2004.
5. D. Binkley. Semantics guided regression test cost reduction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 23(8), Aug. 1997.
6. S. Bohner and R. Arnold. Software Change Impact Analysis. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996.
7. C. Cadar, V. Ganesh, P. M. Pawlowski, D. L. Dill, and D. R. Engler. Exe: Automatically generating inputs of death. In Proc. Conf. Comp. Comm. Sec., pages 322-335, Oct 2006.
8. T. Y. Chen and R. Merkel. Quasi-random testing. IEEE Trans. Rel., 56(3):562-568, 2007.
9. L. Clarke. A system to generate test data and symbolically execute programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 2(3):215-222, Sept. 1976.
10. L. Clarke and D. Richardson. Applications of symbolic evaluation. J. Sys. Softw., 5(1):15-35, Jan. 1985.
11. CREST - automatic test generation tool for C. http://code.google.com/p/ crest/.
12. R. DeMillo and A. Offutt. Constraint-based automatic test data generation. IEEE TSE, 17(9):900-910, Sept. 1991.
13. E. Díaz, J. Tuya, R. Blanco, and J. Javier Dolado. A tabu search algorithm for structural software testing. Comp. Op. Res., 35(10):3052-3072, 2008.
14. H. Do, S. G. Elbaum, and G. Rothermel. Supporting controlled experimentation with testing techniques: An infrastructure and its potential impact. Emp. Softw. Eng.: Int'l J., 10(4):405-435, 2005.
15. S. Elbaum, A. Malishevsky, and G. Rothermel. Test case prioritization: A family of empirical studies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 28(2):159-182, 2002.
16. M. Emmi, R. Majumdar, and K. Sen. Dynamic test input generation for database applications. In Proc. Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 151-162, July 2007.
17. R. Ferguson and B. Korel. The chaining approach for software test data generation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth., 5(1):63-86, Jan. 1996.
18. P. Godefroid, N. Klarlund, and K. Sen. DART: Directed automated random testing. In Proc. Conf. Prog. Lang. Des. Impl., pages 213-223, June 2005.
19. A. Gotlieb, B. Botella, and M. Reuher. Automatic test data generation using constraint solving techniques. In Proc. Int'l. Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 53-62, Mar. 1998.
20. R. Gupta, M. Harrold, and M. Soffa. Program slicing-based regression testing techniques. J. Softw. Test., Verif., Rel., 6(2):83-111, June 1996.
21. M. Hutchins, H. Foster, T. Goradia, and T. Ostrand. Experiments on the effectiveness of dataflow- and controlflow-based test adequacy criteria. In Proc. Int'l. Conf. Softw. Eng., pages 191-200, May 1994.
22. B. Korel. Automated software test data generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 16(8):870-897, Aug. 1990.
23. Z. Li, M. Harman, and R. Hierons. Search algorithms for regression test case prioritization. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 33(4):225-237, Apr. 2007.
24. D. Marinov and S. Khurshid. TestEra: A novel framework for automated testing of Java programs. In Proc. Int'l. Conf. Auto. Softw. Eng., Nov. 2001.
25. P. McMinn. Search-based software test data generation: A survey. J. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab., 14(2):105-156, 2004.
26. C. Michael, G. McGraw, and M. Shatz. Generating software test data by evolution. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 27(12):1085-1110, Dec. 2001.
27. J. Offutt and A. Abdurazik. Generating tests from UML specifications. In Proc. Int'l. Conf. UML, Oct. 1999.
28. A. Orso, N. Shi, and M. J. Harrold. Scaling regression testing to large software systems. In Proc. Int'l. Symp. Found. Softw. Eng., Nov. 2004.
29. S. Person, M. B. Dwyer, S. Elbaum, and C. S. Pǎsǎreanu. Differential symbolic execution. In Proc. Int'l. Symp. Found. Softw. Eng., pages 226-237, Nov. 2008.
30. G. Rothermel and M. J. Harrold. Selecting tests and identifying test coverage requirements for modified software. In Proc. Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., Aug 1994.
31. G. Rothermel and M. J. Harrold. A safe, efficient regression test selection technique. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth., 6(2):173-210, Apr. 1997.
32. R. Santelices, P. K. Chittimalli, T. Apiwattanapong, A. Orso, and M. J. Harrold. Test-suite augmentation for evolving software. In Proc. Int'l Conf. Auto. Softw. Eng., Sept. 2008.
33. K. Sen and G. Agha. JCUTE: Concolic unit testing and explicit path model-checking tools. In Proc. Int'l Conf. Comp. Aided Verif., pages 419-423, Aug 2006.
34. K. Sen, D. Marinov, and G. Agha. CUTE: A concolic unit testing engine for C. In Proc. Int'l Symp. Found. Softw. Eng., pages 263-272, Sept. 2005.
35. P. Tonella. Evolutionary testing of classes. In Intl. Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 119-128, 2004.
36. W. Visser, C. Pasareanu, and S. Khurshid. Test input generation with Java Pathfinder. In Proc. Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 97-107, July 2004.
37. H. Waeselynck, P. Thévenod-Fosse, and O. Abdellatif-Kaddour. Simulated annealing applied to test generation: Landscape characterization and stopping criteria. Emp. Softw. Eng., 12(1):35-63, 2007.
38. A. Walcott, M. L. Soffa, G. M. Kapfhammer, and R. S. Roos. Time-aware test suite prioritization. In Proc. Int'l. Conf. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 1-12, July 2006.
39. S. Wappler and F. Lammermann. Using evolutionary algorithms for the unit testing of object-oriented software. In Conf. Gen. Evol. Comp., pages 1053-1060, 2005.
40. G. Wassermann, D. Yu, A. Chander, D. Dhurjati, H. Inamura, and Z. Su. Dynamic test input generation for web applications. In Proc. Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., pages 249-260, July 2008.
41. Z. Xu, M. Cohen, and G. Rothermel. Factors affecting the use of genetic algorithms in test suite augmentation. In Gen. Evol. Comp. Conf, July 2010.
42. Z. Xu and G. Rothermel. Directed test suite augmentation. In Proc. Asia-Pacific Softw. Eng. Conf., Dec. 2009.