Test Data Generation of Bytecode by CLP Partial Evaluation

We employ existing partial evaluation (PE) techniques developed for Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) in order to automatically generate test-case generators for glass-box testing of bytecode. Our approach consists of two independent CLP PE phases. (1) First, the bytecode is transformed into an equivalent (decompiled) CLP program. This is already a well studied transformation which can be done either by using an ad-hoc decompiler or by specialising a bytecode interpreter by means of existing PE techniques. (2) A second PE is performed in order to supervise the generation of test-cases by execution of the CLP decompiled program. Interestingly, we employ control strategies previously defined in the context of CLP PE in order to capture coverage criteria for glass-box testing of bytecode. A unique feature of our approach is that, this second PE phase allows generating not only test-cases but also test-case generators. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that (CLP) PE techniques are applied for test-case generation as well as to generate test-case generators

Concolic Testing in Logic programming

Software testing is one of the most popular validation techniques in the software industry. Surprisingly, we can only find a few approaches to testing in the context of logic programming. In this paper, we introduce a systematic approach for dynamic testing that combines both concrete and symbolic execution. Our approach is fully automatic and guarantees full path coverage when it terminates. We prove some basic properties of our technique and illustrate its practical usefulness through a prototype implementation.This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-1-R and by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEOII/2015/013. Part of this research was done while the third author was visiting the University of Reunion; G. Vidal gratefully acknowledges their hospitality.Mesnard, F.; Payet, E.; Vidal Oriola, GF. (2015). Concolic Testing in Logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. 15(4):711-725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068415000332S711725154SCHIMPF, J., & SHEN, K. (2011). ECLiPSe – From LP to CLP. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12(1-2), 127-156. doi:10.1017/s1471068411000469Martelli, A., & Montanari, U. (1982). An Efficient Unification Algorithm. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(2), 258-282. doi:10.1145/357162.357169Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., & Sen, K. (2005). DART. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation - PLDI ’05. doi:10.1145/1065010.1065036Mera E. , López-García P. , and Hermenegildo M. V. 2009. Integrating software testing and run-time checking in an assertion verification framework. In 25th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2009, Pasadena. 281–295.Godefroid, P., Levin, M. Y., & Molnar, D. (2012). SAGE. Communications of the ACM, 55(3), 40. doi:10.1145/2093548.2093564WIELEMAKER, J., SCHRIJVERS, T., TRISKA, M., & LAGER, T. (2011). SWI-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12(1-2), 67-96. doi:10.1017/s1471068411000494CARLSSON, M., & MILDNER, P. (2011). SICStus Prolog—The first 25 years. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12(1-2), 35-66. doi:10.1017/s1471068411000482Degrave F. , Schrijvers T. , and Vanhoof W. 2008. Automatic generation of test inputs for Mercury. In Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation, 18th International Symposium, LOPSTR 2008. 71–86.Somogyi, Z., Henderson, F., & Conway, T. (1996). The execution algorithm of mercury, an efficient purely declarative logic programming language. The Journal of Logic Programming, 29(1-3), 17-64. doi:10.1016/s0743-1066(96)00068-4Vidal, G. (2015). Concolic Execution and Test Case Generation in Prolog. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 167-181. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17822-6_10Belli F. and Jack O. 1993. Implementation-based analysis and testing of Prolog programs. In ISSTA. 70–80.King, J. C. (1976). Symbolic execution and program testing. Communications of the ACM, 19(7), 385-394. doi:10.1145/360248.360252Lloyd, J. W. (1987). Foundations of Logic Programming. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8Clarke L. 1976. A program testing system. In Proceedings of the 1976 Annual Conference (ACM'76). 488–491

Programmiersprachen und Rechenkonzepte

Seit 1984 veranstaltet die GI--Fachgruppe "Programmiersprachen und Rechenkonzepte" regelmäßig im Frühjahr einen Workshop im Physikzentrum Bad Honnef. Das Treffen dient in erster Linie dem gegenseitigen Kennenlernen, dem Erfahrungsaustausch, der Diskussion und der Vertiefung gegenseitiger Kontakte

Automatic Generation of Test Inputs for Mercury

Abstract. In this work, we consider the automatic generation of test inputs for Mercury programs. We use an abstract representation of a program that allows to reason about program executions as paths in a control-flow graph. Next, we define how such a path corresponds to a set of constraints whose solution defines input values for the predicate under test such that when the predicate is called with respect to these input values, the execution is guaranteed to follow the given path. The approach is similar to existing work for imperative languages, but has been considerably adapted to deal with the specificities of Mercury, such as symbolic data representation, predicate failure and non-determinism.