3 research outputs found

    Computing change of invariants to support software evolution

    Get PDF
    Software is always evolving. In the recent years, the development community has shifted towards Agile development paradigm resulting in faster release cycle. This emphasis on speed is, generally, accompanied by an increase in the number of bugs and reduced focus on updating non-functional software artifacts like specification document. Recent studies have found that developers find it difficult to determine whether a change might break code elsewhere in the program, resulting in 25% of bugs fixes to be incorrect or buggy. A method to capture the semantic changes between different versions of a program is vital in understanding the impact of the change and in preventing bugs. An invariant is a condition that is always true at a given program point. Invariants are used to specify the requirements and desired behavior of a program at any program point. The difference in invariants between different program versions can be used to capture the changes made to the program. In this thesis, we use the change of invariants as a way to capture the semantic changes over different program versions. We designed a static demand-driven algorithm for automatically computing the change of invariants between different versions of a program. To evaluate the algorithm and its ability to capture semantic changes over different program versions, we built a prototype framework called Hydrogen. Our experimental results show that Hydrogen is able to compute the change of invariants between different versions of the programs, and the computed change of invariants can be used for understanding changes and generating assertions to prevent similar bugs in future

    Putting the Semantics into Semantic Versioning

    Full text link
    The long-standing aspiration for software reuse has made astonishing strides in the past few years. Many modern software development ecosystems now come with rich sets of publicly-available components contributed by the community. Downstream developers can leverage these upstream components, boosting their productivity. However, components evolve at their own pace. This imposes obligations on and yields benefits for downstream developers, especially since changes can be breaking, requiring additional downstream work to adapt to. Upgrading too late leaves downstream vulnerable to security issues and missing out on useful improvements; upgrading too early results in excess work. Semantic versioning has been proposed as an elegant mechanism to communicate levels of compatibility, enabling downstream developers to automate dependency upgrades. While it is questionable whether a version number can adequately characterize version compatibility in general, we argue that developers would greatly benefit from tools such as semantic version calculators to help them upgrade safely. The time is now for the research community to develop such tools: large component ecosystems exist and are accessible, component interactions have become observable through automated builds, and recent advances in program analysis make the development of relevant tools feasible. In particular, contracts (both traditional and lightweight) are a promising input to semantic versioning calculators, which can suggest whether an upgrade is likely to be safe.Comment: to be published as Onward! Essays 202

    Automating test oracles generation

    Get PDF
    Software systems play a more and more important role in our everyday life. Many relevant human activities nowadays involve the execution of a piece of software. Software has to be reliable to deliver the expected behavior, and assessing the quality of software is of primary importance to reduce the risk of runtime errors. Software testing is the most common quality assessing technique for software. Testing consists in running the system under test on a finite set of inputs, and checking the correctness of the results. Thoroughly testing a software system is expensive and requires a lot of manual work to define test inputs (stimuli used to trigger different software behaviors) and test oracles (the decision procedures checking the correctness of the results). Researchers have addressed the cost of testing by proposing techniques to automatically generate test inputs. While the generation of test inputs is well supported, there is no way to generate cost-effective test oracles: Existing techniques to produce test oracles are either too expensive to be applied in practice, or produce oracles with limited effectiveness that can only identify blatant failures like system crashes. Our intuition is that cost-effective test oracles can be generated using information produced as a byproduct of the normal development activities. The goal of this thesis is to create test oracles that can detect faults leading to semantic and non-trivial errors, and that are characterized by a reasonable generation cost. We propose two ways to generate test oracles, one derives oracles from the software redundancy and the other from the natural language comments that document the source code of software systems. We present a technique that exploits redundant sequences of method calls encoding the software redundancy to automatically generate test oracles named CCOracles. We describe how CCOracles are automatically generated, deployed, and executed. We prove the effectiveness of CCOracles by measuring their fault-finding effectiveness when combined with both automatically generated and hand-written test inputs. We also present Toradocu, a technique that derives executable specifications from Javadoc comments of Java constructors and methods. From such specifications, Toradocu generates test oracles that are then deployed into existing test suites to assess the outputs of given test inputs. We empirically evaluate Toradocu, showing that Toradocu accurately translates Javadoc comments into procedure specifications. We also show that Toradocu oracles effectively identify semantic faults in the SUT. CCOracles and Toradocu oracles stem from independent information sources and are complementary in the sense that they check different aspects of the system undertest
    corecore