Test Case Purification for Improving Fault Localization

Finding and fixing bugs are time-consuming activities in software development. Spectrum-based fault localization aims to identify the faulty position in source code based on the execution trace of test cases. Failing test cases and their assertions form test oracles for the failing behavior of the system under analysis. In this paper, we propose a novel concept of spectrum driven test case purification for improving fault localization. The goal of test case purification is to separate existing test cases into small fractions (called purified test cases) and to enhance the test oracles to further localize faults. Combining with an original fault localization technique (e.g., Tarantula), test case purification results in better ranking the program statements. Our experiments on 1800 faults in six open-source Java programs show that test case purification can effectively improve existing fault localization techniques

Dynamic Analysis can be Improved with Automatic Test Suite Refactoring

Context: Developers design test suites to automatically verify that software meets its expected behaviors. Many dynamic analysis techniques are performed on the exploitation of execution traces from test cases. However, in practice, there is only one trace that results from the execution of one manually-written test case. Objective: In this paper, we propose a new technique of test suite refactoring, called B-Refactoring. The idea behind B-Refactoring is to split a test case into small test fragments, which cover a simpler part of the control flow to provide better support for dynamic analysis. Method: For a given dynamic analysis technique, our test suite refactoring approach monitors the execution of test cases and identifies small test cases without loss of the test ability. We apply B-Refactoring to assist two existing analysis tasks: automatic repair of if-statements bugs and automatic analysis of exception contracts. Results: Experimental results show that test suite refactoring can effectively simplify the execution traces of the test suite. Three real-world bugs that could previously not be fixed with the original test suite are fixed after applying B-Refactoring; meanwhile, exception contracts are better verified via applying B-Refactoring to original test suites. Conclusions: We conclude that applying B-Refactoring can effectively improve the purity of test cases. Existing dynamic analysis tasks can be enhanced by test suite refactoring

You Cannot Fix What You Cannot Find! An Investigation of Fault Localization Bias in Benchmarking Automated Program Repair Systems

Properly benchmarking Automated Program Repair (APR) systems should contribute to the development and adoption of the research outputs by practitioners. To that end, the research community must ensure that it reaches significant milestones by reliably comparing state-of-the-art tools for a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we identify and investigate a practical bias caused by the fault localization (FL) step in a repair pipeline. We propose to highlight the different fault localization configurations used in the literature, and their impact on APR systems when applied to the Defects4J benchmark. Then, we explore the performance variations that can be achieved by `tweaking' the FL step. Eventually, we expect to create a new momentum for (1) full disclosure of APR experimental procedures with respect to FL, (2) realistic expectations of repairing bugs in Defects4J, as well as (3) reliable performance comparison among the state-of-the-art APR systems, and against the baseline performance results of our thoroughly assessed kPAR repair tool. Our main findings include: (a) only a subset of Defects4J bugs can be currently localized by commonly-used FL techniques; (b) current practice of comparing state-of-the-art APR systems (i.e., counting the number of fixed bugs) is potentially misleading due to the bias of FL configurations; and (c) APR authors do not properly qualify their performance achievement with respect to the different tuning parameters implemented in APR systems.Comment: Accepted by ICST 201

Amortising the Cost of Mutation Based Fault Localisation using Statistical Inference

Mutation analysis can effectively capture the dependency between source code and test results. This has been exploited by Mutation Based Fault Localisation (MBFL) techniques. However, MBFL techniques suffer from the need to expend the high cost of mutation analysis after the observation of failures, which may present a challenge for its practical adoption. We introduce SIMFL (Statistical Inference for Mutation-based Fault Localisation), an MBFL technique that allows users to perform the mutation analysis in advance against an earlier version of the system. SIMFL uses mutants as artificial faults and aims to learn the failure patterns among test cases against different locations of mutations. Once a failure is observed, SIMFL requires either almost no or very small additional cost for analysis, depending on the used inference model. An empirical evaluation of SIMFL using 355 faults in Defects4J shows that SIMFL can successfully localise up to 103 faults at the top, and 152 faults within the top five, on par with state-of-the-art alternatives. The cost of mutation analysis can be further reduced by mutation sampling: SIMFL retains over 80% of its localisation accuracy at the top rank when using only 10% of generated mutants, compared to results obtained without sampling

Automatic Repair of Real Bugs: An Experience Report on the Defects4J Dataset

Defects4J is a large, peer-reviewed, structured dataset of real-world Java bugs. Each bug in Defects4J is provided with a test suite and at least one failing test case that triggers the bug. In this paper, we report on an experiment to explore the effectiveness of automatic repair on Defects4J. The result of our experiment shows that 47 bugs of the Defects4J dataset can be automatically repaired by state-of- the-art repair. This sets a baseline for future research on automatic repair for Java. We have manually analyzed 84 different patches to assess their real correctness. In total, 9 real Java bugs can be correctly fixed with test-suite based repair. This analysis shows that test-suite based repair suffers from under-specified bugs, for which trivial and incorrect patches still pass the test suite. With respect to practical applicability, it takes in average 14.8 minutes to find a patch. The experiment was done on a scientific grid, totaling 17.6 days of computation time. All their systems and experimental results are publicly available on Github in order to facilitate future research on automatic repair

TBar: Revisiting Template-based Automated Program Repair

We revisit the performance of template-based APR to build comprehensive knowledge about the effectiveness of fix patterns, and to highlight the importance of complementary steps such as fault localization or donor code retrieval. To that end, we first investigate the literature to collect, summarize and label recurrently-used fix patterns. Based on the investigation, we build TBar, a straightforward APR tool that systematically attempts to apply these fix patterns to program bugs. We thoroughly evaluate TBar on the Defects4J benchmark. In particular, we assess the actual qualitative and quantitative diversity of fix patterns, as well as their effectiveness in yielding plausible or correct patches. Eventually, we find that, assuming a perfect fault localization, TBar correctly/plausibly fixes 74/101 bugs. Replicating a standard and practical pipeline of APR assessment, we demonstrate that TBar correctly fixes 43 bugs from Defects4J, an unprecedented performance in the literature (including all approaches, i.e., template-based, stochastic mutation-based or synthesis-based APR).Comment: Accepted by ISSTA 201

Automatically Repairing Programs Using Both Tests and Bug Reports

The success of automated program repair (APR) depends significantly on its ability to localize the defects it is repairing. For fault localization (FL), APR tools typically use either spectrum-based (SBFL) techniques that use test executions or information-retrieval-based (IRFL) techniques that use bug reports. These two approaches often complement each other, patching different defects. No existing repair tool uses both SBFL and IRFL. We develop RAFL (Rank-Aggregation-Based Fault Localization), a novel FL approach that combines multiple FL techniques. We also develop Blues, a new IRFL technique that uses bug reports, and an unsupervised approach to localize defects. On a dataset of 818 real-world defects, SBIR (combined SBFL and Blues) consistently localizes more bugs and ranks buggy statements higher than the two underlying techniques. For example, SBIR correctly identifies a buggy statement as the most suspicious for 18.1% of the defects, while SBFL does so for 10.9% and Blues for 3.1%. We extend SimFix, a state-of-the-art APR tool, to use SBIR, SBFL, and Blues. SimFix using SBIR patches 112 out of the 818 defects; 110 when using SBFL, and 55 when using Blues. The 112 patched defects include 55 defects patched exclusively using SBFL, 7 patched exclusively using IRFL, 47 patched using both SBFL and IRFL and 3 new defects. SimFix using Blues significantly outperforms iFixR, the state-of-the-art IRFL-based APR tool. Overall, SimFix using our FL techniques patches ten defects no prior tools could patch. By evaluating on a benchmark of 818 defects, 442 previously unused in APR evaluations, we find that prior evaluations on the overused Defects4J benchmark have led to overly generous findings. Our paper is the first to (1) use combined FL for APR, (2) apply a more rigorous methodology for measuring patch correctness, and (3) evaluate on the new, substantially larger version of Defects4J.Comment: working pape