An Empirical Study on Mutation, Statement and Branch Coverage Fault Revelation that Avoids the Unreliable Clean Program Assumption

Many studies suggest using coverage concepts, such as branch coverage, as the starting point of testing, while others as the most prominent test quality indicator. Yet the relationship between coverage and fault-revelation remains unknown, yielding uncertainty and controversy. Most previous studies rely on the Clean Program Assumption, that a test suite will obtain similar coverage for both faulty and fixed (‘clean’) program versions. This assumption may appear intuitive, especially for bugs that denote small semantic deviations. However, we present evidence that the Clean Program Assumption does not always hold, thereby raising a critical threat to the validity of previous results. We then conducted a study using a robust experimental methodology that avoids this threat to validity, from which our primary finding is that strong mutation testing has the highest fault revelation of four widely-used criteria. Our findings also revealed that fault revelation starts to increase significantly only once relatively high levels of coverage are attained

Mind the Gap: The Difference Between Coverage and Mutation Score Can Guide Testing Efforts

An "adequate" test suite should effectively find all inconsistencies between a system's requirements/specifications and its implementation. Practitioners frequently use code coverage to approximate adequacy, while academics argue that mutation score may better approximate true (oracular) adequacy coverage. High code coverage is increasingly attainable even on large systems via automatic test generation, including fuzzing. In light of all of these options for measuring and improving testing effort, how should a QA engineer spend their time? We propose a new framework for reasoning about the extent, limits, and nature of a given testing effort based on an idea we call the oracle gap, or the difference between source code coverage and mutation score for a given software element. We conduct (1) a large-scale observational study of the oracle gap across popular Maven projects, (2) a study that varies testing and oracle quality across several of those projects and (3) a small-scale observational study of highly critical, well-tested code across comparable blockchain projects. We show that the oracle gap surfaces important information about the extent and quality of a test effort beyond either adequacy metric alone. In particular, it provides a way for practitioners to identify source files where it is likely a weak oracle tests important code

Empirical Evaluation of Mutation-based Test Prioritization Techniques

We propose a new test case prioritization technique that combines both mutation-based and diversity-based approaches. Our diversity-aware mutation-based technique relies on the notion of mutant distinguishment, which aims to distinguish one mutant's behavior from another, rather than from the original program. We empirically investigate the relative cost and effectiveness of the mutation-based prioritization techniques (i.e., using both the traditional mutant kill and the proposed mutant distinguishment) with 352 real faults and 553,477 developer-written test cases. The empirical evaluation considers both the traditional and the diversity-aware mutation criteria in various settings: single-objective greedy, hybrid, and multi-objective optimization. The results show that there is no single dominant technique across all the studied faults. To this end, \rev{we we show when and the reason why each one of the mutation-based prioritization criteria performs poorly, using a graphical model called Mutant Distinguishment Graph (MDG) that demonstrates the distribution of the fault detecting test cases with respect to mutant kills and distinguishment

Assessment and Improvement of the Practical Use of Mutation for Automated Software Testing

Software testing is the main quality assurance technique used in software engineering. In fact, companies that develop software and open-source communities alike actively integrate testing into their software development life cycle. In order to guide and give objectives for the software testing process, researchers have designed test adequacy criteria (TAC) which, define the properties of a software that must be covered in order to constitute a thorough test suite. Many TACs have been designed in the literature, among which, the widely used statement and branch TAC, as well as the fault-based TAC named mutation. It has been shown in the literature that mutation is effective at revealing fault in software, nevertheless, mutation adoption in practice is still lagging due to its cost. Ideally, TACs that are most likely to lead to higher fault revelation are desired for testing and, the fault-revelation of test suites is expected to increase as their coverage of TACs test objectives increase. However, the question of which TAC best guides software testing towards fault revelation remains controversial and open, and, the relationship between TACs test objectives’ coverage and fault-revelation remains unknown. In order to increase knowledge and provide answers about these issues, we conducted, in this dissertation, an empirical study that evaluates the relationship between test objectives’ coverage and fault-revelation for four TACs (statement, branch coverage and, weak and strong mutation). The study showed that fault-revelation increase with coverage only beyond some coverage threshold and, strong mutation TAC has highest fault revelation. Despite the benefit of higher fault-revelation that strong mutation TAC provide for software testing, software practitioners are still reluctant to integrate strong mutation into their software testing activities. This happens mainly because of the high cost of mutation analysis, which is related to the large number of mutants and the limitation in the automation of test generation for strong mutation. Several approaches have been proposed, in the literature, to tackle the analysis’ cost issue of strong mutation. Mutant selection (reduction) approaches aim to reduce the number of mutants used for testing by selecting a small subset of mutation operator to apply during mutants generation, thus, reducing the number of analyzed mutants. Nevertheless, those approaches are not more effective, w.r.t. fault-revelation, than random mutant sampling (which leads to a high loss in fault revelation). Moreover, there is not much work in the literature that regards cost-effective automated test generation for strong mutation. This dissertation proposes two techniques, FaRM and SEMu, to reduce the cost of mutation testing. FaRM statically selects and prioritizes mutants that lead to faults (fault-revealing mutants), in order to reduce the number of mutants (fault-revealing mutants represent a very small proportion of the generated mutants). SEMu automatically generates tests that strongly kill mutants and thus, increase the mutation score and improve the test suites. First, this dissertation makes an empirical study that evaluates the fault-revelation (ability to lead to tests that have high fault-revelation) of four TACs, namely statement, branch, weak mutation and strong mutation. The outcome of the study show evidence that for all four studied TACs, the fault-revelation increases with TAC test objectives’ coverage only beyond a certain threshold of coverage. This suggests the need to attain higher coverage during testing. Moreover, the study shows that strong mutation is the only studied TAC that leads to tests that have, significantly, the highest fault-revelation. Second, in line with mutant reduction, we study the different mutant quality indicators (used to qualify "useful" mutants) proposed in the literature, including fault-revealing mutants. Our study shows that there is a large disagreement between the indicators suggesting that the fault-revealing mutant set is unique and differs from other mutant sets. Thus, given that testing aims to reveal faults, one should directly target fault-revealing mutants for mutant reduction. We also do so in this dissertation. Third, this dissertation proposes FaRM, a mutant reduction technique based on supervised machine learning. In order to automatically discriminate, before test execution, between useful (valuable) and useless mutants, FaRM build a mutants classification machine learning model. The features for the classification model are static program features of mutants categorized as mutant types and mutant context (abstract syntax tree, control flow graph and data/control dependency information). FaRM’s classification model successfully predicted fault-revealing mutants and killable mutants. Then, in order to reduce the number of analyzed mutants, FaRM selects and prioritizes fault-revealing mutants based of the aforementioned mutants classification model. An empirical evaluation shows that FaRM outperforms (w.r.t. the accuracy of fault-revealing mutant selection) random mutants sampling and existing mutation operators-based mutant selection techniques. Fourth, this dissertation proposes SEMu, an automated test input generation technique aiming to increase strong mutation coverage score of test suites. SEMu is based on symbolic execution and leverages multiple cost reduction heuristics for the symbolic execution. An empirical evaluation shows that, for limited time budget, the SEMu generates tests that successfully increase strong mutation coverage score and, kill more mutants than test generated by state-of-the-art techniques. Finally, this dissertation proposes Muteria a framework that enables the integration of FaRM and SEMu into the automated software testing process. Overall, this dissertation provides insights on how to effectively use TACs to test software, shows that strong mutation is the most effective TAC for software testing. It also provides techniques that effectively facilitate the practical use of strong mutation and, an extensive tooling to support the proposed techniques while enabling their extensions for the practical adoption of strong mutation in software testing

MuDelta: Delta-Oriented Mutation Testing at Commit Time

To effectively test program changes using mutation testing, one needs to use mutants that are relevant to the altered program behaviours. In view of this, we introduce MuDelta, an approach that identifies commit-relevant mutants; mutants that affect and are affected by the changed program behaviours. Our approach uses machine learning applied on a combined scheme of graph and vector-based representations of static code features. Our results, from 50 commits in 21 Coreutils programs, demonstrate a strong prediction ability of our approach; yielding 0.80 (ROC) and 0.50 (PR Curve) AUC values with 0.63 and 0.32 precision and recall values. These predictions are significantly higher than random guesses, 0.20 (PR-Curve) AUC, 0.21 and 0.21 precision and recall, and subsequently lead to strong relevant tests that kill 45%more relevant mutants than randomly sampled mutants (either sampled from those residing on the changed component(s) or from the changed lines). Our results also show that MuDelta selects mutants with 27% higher fault revealing ability in fault introducing commits. Taken together, our results corroborate the conclusion that commit-based mutation testing is suitable and promising for evolving software

Goal-Oriented Mutation Testing with Focal Methods

Mutation testing is the state-of-the-art technique for assessing the fault-detection capacity of a test suite. Unfortunately, mutation testing consumes enormous computing resources because it runs the whole test suite for each and every injected mutant. In this paper we explore fine-grained traceability links at method level (named focal methods), to reduce the execution time of mutation testing and to verify the quality of the test cases for each individual method, instead of the usually verified overall test suite quality. Validation of our approach on the open source Apache Ant project shows a speed-up of 573.5x for the mutants located in focal methods with a quality score of 80%.Comment: A-TEST 201