Understanding user understanding: Determining correctness of generated program invariants

2012 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2012 - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 188-198

  Staats, Matt ^a   Hong, Shin ^a   Kim, Moonzoo ^a   Rothermel, Gregg ^a,b  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

dynamic invariant generation; Oracle generation; testing judgement

Indexed keywords

DYNAMIC INVARIANTS; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; HUMAN INTERVENTION; JAVA PROGRAM; ORACLE GENERATION; PROGRAM EXECUTION; PROGRAM INVARIANTS; TEST ORACLES; TESTING PROCESS;

COMPUTER AIDED LANGUAGE TRANSLATION; SOFTWARE TESTING;

JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE;

EID: 84865281392     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/04000800.2336776     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. L. Baresi and M. Young. Test oracles. In Tech. Report CIS-TR-01-02, Dept. of CIS, U. of Oregon, 2001.
2. A. Bertolino. Software testing research: Achievements, challenges, dreams. In L. Briand and A. Wolf, editors, Future of Software Engineering 2007. IEEE-CS Press, 2007.
3. M. Boshernitsan, R. Doong, and A. Savoia. From Daikon to Agitator: Lessons and challenges in building a commercial tool for developer testing. In Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Analy., pages 169-180, 2006.
4. L. Burdy, Y. Cheon, D. Cok, M. Ernst, J. Kiniry, G. Leavens, K. Leino, and E. Poll. An overview of JML tools and applications. Int'l J. Softw. Tools Tech. Transfer, 7(3):212-232, 2005.
5. Y. Cheon and G. Leavens. A runtime assertion checker for the Java Modeling Language (JML). In Int'l Conf. on Softw. Eng. Res. Pract., pages 322-328, 2002.
6. D. Cok and J. Kiniry. ESC/java2: Uniting ESC/Java and JML. Constr. Analy. Safe, Secure, Interop. Smart Devs., pages 108-128, 2005.
7. C. Csallner, N. Tillmann, and Y. Smaragdakis. DySy: Dynamic symbolic execution for invariant inference. In Int'l Conf. Softw. Eng., pages 281-290, 2008.
8. J. Edvardsson. A survey on automatic test data generation. In Conf. Comp. Sci. Eng., pages 21-28, 1999.
9. M. Ernst, J. Perkins, P. Guo, S. McCamant, C. Pacheco, M. Tschantz, and C. Xiao. The Daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Science of Comp. Prog., 69(1-3):35-45, 2007.
10. M. D. Ernst, J. Cockrell, W. G. Griswold, and D. Notkin. Dynamically discovering likely program invariants to support program evolution. Trans. Softw. Eng., 27(2):99-123, Feb. 2001.
11. M. D. Ernst, A. Czeisler, W. G. Griswold, and D. Notkin. Quickly detecting relevant program invariants. In Int'l. Conf. Softw. Eng., pages 449-458, June 2000.
12. G. Fraser and A. Zeller. Mutation-driven generation of unit tests and oracles. In Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Analy., pages 147-158, 2010.
13. A. Gargantini and C. Heitmeyer. Using model checking to generate tests from requirements specifications. Softw. Eng. Notes, 24(6):146-162, Nov. 1999.
14. P. Godefroid, N. Klarlund, and K. Sen. DART: Directed automated random testing. Prog. Lang. Des. Impl., 2005.
15. A. Groce, D. Kroening, and F. Lerda. Understanding counterexamples with explain. In Comp. Aided Verif., pages 318-321, 2004.
16. J. Guilford and B. Fruchter. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956.
17. J. Hicklin, C. Moler, P. Webb, R. Boisvert, B. Miller, R. Pozo, and K. Remington. Jama: A Java matrix package, 2005. URL: http://math.nist.gov/ javanumerics/jama.
18. B. Jones, H. Sthamer, and D. Eyres. Automatic structural testing using genetic algorithms. Softw. Eng. J., 11(5):299-306, 1996.
19. Y. Kataoka, M. D. Ernst, W. G. Griswold, and D. Notkin. Automated support for program refactoring using invariants. In Int'l. Conf. Softw. Maint., pages 736-743, Nov. 2001.
20. P. Kvam and B. Vidakovic. Nonparametric Statistics with Applications to Science and Engineering. Wiley, 2007.
21. C. Lee. JavaNCSS-a source measurement suite for Java, 2005. URL: http://javancss.codehaus.org/.
22. Math4J: A Java numerics package, 2005. URL: http://math4j.com/.
23. J. W. Nimmer and M. D. Ernst. Automatic generation of program specifications. In Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Analy., pages 232-242, July 2002.
24. C. Pacheco and M. Ernst. Randoop: Feedback-directed random testing for Java. In O.O. Prog. Sys. Apps., pages 815-816, 2007.
25. J. H. Perkins and M. D. Ernst. Efficient incremental algorithms for dynamic detection of likely invariants. In Symp. Found. Softw. Eng., pages 23-32, Nov. 2004.
26. N. Polikarpova, I. Ciupa, and B. Meyer. A comparative study of programmer-written and automatically inferred contracts. In Int'l Symp. Softw. Test. Analy., pages 93-104, 2009.
27. K. Sen, D. Marinov, and G. Agha. CUTE: A concolic unit testing engine for C. In Int'l. Symp. Found. Softw. Eng., pages 263-272, 2005.
28. M. Staats, G. Gay, and M. Heimdahl. Automated oracle creation support, or: How I learned to stop worrying about fault propagation and love mutation testing. In Int'l Conf. Softw. Eng., 2012.
29. M. Staats, M. Whalen, and M. Heimdahl. Programs, tests, and oracles: The foundations of testing revisited. In Int'l Conf. Softw. Eng., pages 391-400. IEEE, 2011.
30. N. Tillmann, F. Chen, and W. Schulte. Discovering likely method specifications. Formal Meth. Softw. Eng., pages 717-736, 2006.
31. Y. Wei, C. Furia, N. Kazmin, and B. Meyer. Inferring better contracts. In Int'l Conf. Softw. Eng., pages 191-200, 2011.
32. T. Xie and D. Notkin. Tool-assisted unit test selection based on operational violations. In Auto. Softw. Eng., 2003.