How effective are mutation testing tools? An empirical analysis of Java mutation testing tools with manual analysis and real faults

Mutation analysis is a well-studied, fault-based testing technique. It requires testers to design tests based on a set of artificial defects. The defects help in performing testing activities by measuring the ratio that is revealed by the candidate tests. Unfortunately, applying mutation to real-world programs requires automated tools due to the vast number of defects involved. In such a case, the effectiveness of the method strongly depends on the peculiarities of the employed tools. Thus, when using automated tools, their implementation inadequacies can lead to inaccurate results. To deal with this issue, we cross-evaluate four mutation testing tools for Java, namely PIT, muJava, Major and the research version of PIT, PITRV, with respect to their fault-detection capabilities. We investigate the strengths of the tools based on: a) a set of real faults and b) manual analysis of the mutants they introduce. We find that there are large differences between the tools’ effectiveness and demonstrate that no tool is able to subsume the others. We also provide results indicating the application cost of the method. Overall, we find that PITRV achieves the best results. In particular, PITRV outperforms the other tools by finding 6% more faults than the other tools combined

Learning How to Search: Generating Effective Test Cases Through Adaptive Fitness Function Selection

Search-based test generation is guided by feedback from one or more fitness functions— scoring functions that judge solution optimality. Choosing informative fitness functions is crucial to meeting the goals of a tester. Unfortunately, many goals—such as forcing the class-under-test to throw exceptions, increasing test suite diversity, and attaining Strong Mutation Coverage—do not have effective fitness function formulations. We propose that meeting such goals requires treating fitness function identification as a secondary optimization step. An adaptive algorithm that can vary the selection of fitness functions could adjust its selection throughout the generation process to maximize goal attainment, based on the current population of test suites. To test this hypothesis, we have implemented two reinforcement learning algorithms in the EvoSuite framework, and used these algorithms to dynamically set the fitness functions used during generation for the three goals identified above. We have evaluated our framework, EvoSuiteFIT, on a set of real Java faults. Evo- SuiteFIT techniques attain significant improvements for two of the three goals, and show small improvements on the third when the number of generations of evolution is fixed. For all goals, EvoSuiteFIT detects faults missed by the other techniques. The ability to adjust fitness functions allows EvoSuiteFIT to make strategic choices that efficiently produce more effective test suites, and examining its choices offers insight into how to attain our testing goals. We find that AFFS is a powerful technique to apply when an effective fitness function does not exist for a testing goal