Evolutionary improvement of programs

Most applications of genetic programming (GP) involve the creation of an entirely new function, program or expression to solve a specific problem. In this paper, we propose a new approach that applies GP to improve existing software by optimizing its non-functional properties such as execution time, memory usage, or power consumption. In general, satisfying non-functional requirements is a difficult task and often achieved in part by optimizing compilers. However, modern compilers are in general not always able to produce semantically equivalent alternatives that optimize non-functional properties, even if such alternatives are known to exist: this is usually due to the limited local nature of such optimizations. In this paper, we discuss how best to combine and extend the existing evolutionary methods of GP, multiobjective optimization, and coevolution in order to improve existing software. Given as input the implementation of a function, we attempt to evolve a semantically equivalent version, in this case optimized to reduce execution time subject to a given probability distribution of inputs. We demonstrate that our framework is able to produce non-obvious optimizations that compilers are not yet able to generate on eight example functions. We employ a coevolved population of test cases to encourage the preservation of the function's semantics. We exploit the original program both through seeding of the population in order to focus the search, and as an oracle for testing purposes. As well as discussing the issues that arise when attempting to improve software, we employ rigorous experimental method to provide interesting and practical insights to suggest how to address these issues

EvoSuite at the SBST 2016 Tool Competition

EvoSuite is a search-based tool that automatically generates unit tests for Java code. This paper summarizes the results and experiences of EvoSuite's participation at the fourth unit testing competition at SBST 2016, where Evo-Suite achieved the highest overall score

Economical comparison of CHP systems for industrial user with large steam demand

In this paper cogeneration benefits applied to a user with a high steam demand are analyzed. The methodology for the feasibility study and the economical analysis of the investment is presented under the Italian legislative framework. The methodology is applied to an actual case and a detailed description and discussion of all data input is provided. Especially this last key point will be faced using starting data usually available in these kind of studies (i.e., not very detailed for thermal consumption). Finally a comparison of different CHP technologies and a sensitivity analysis is done

Unit Test Generation During Software Development: EvoSuite Plugins for Maven, IntelliJ and Jenkins

Different techniques to automatically generate unit tests for object oriented classes have been proposed, but how to integrate these tools into the daily activities of software development is a little investigated question. In this paper, we report on our experience in supporting industrial partners in introducing the EVOSUITE automated JUnit test generation tool in their software development processes. The first step consisted of providing a plugin to the Apache Maven build infrastructure. The move from a research-oriented point-and-click tool to an automated step of the build process has implications on how developers interact with the tool and generated tests, and therefore, we produced a plugin for the popular IntelliJ Integrated Development Environment (IDE). As build automation is a core component of Continuous Integration (CI), we provide a further plugin to the Jenkins CI system, which allows developers to monitor the results of EVOSUITE and integrate generated tests in their source tree. In this paper, we discuss the resulting architecture of the plugins, and the challenges arising when building such plugins. Although the plugins described are targeted for the EVOSUITE tool, they can be adapted and their architecture can be reused for other test generation tools as well

Java Enterprise Edition Support in Search-Based JUnit Test Generation.

Many different techniques and tools for automated unit test generation target the Java programming languages due to its popularity. However, a lot of Java’s popularity is due to its usage to develop enterprise applications with frameworks such as Java Enterprise Edition (JEE) or Spring. These frameworks pose challenges to the automatic generation of JUnit tests. In particular, code units (“beans”) are handled by external web containers (e.g., WildFly and GlassFish). Without considering how web containers initialize these beans, automatically generated unit tests would not represent valid scenarios and would be of little use. For example, common issues of bean initialization are dependency injection, database connection, and JNDI bean lookup. In this paper, we extend the EvoSuite search-based JUnit test generation tool to provide initial support for JEE applications. Experiments on 247 classes (the JBoss EAP tutorial examples) reveal an increase in code coverage, and demonstrate that our techniques prevent the generation of useless tests (e.g., tests where dependencies are not injected)

Private API Access and Functional Mocking in Automated Unit Test Generation

Not all object oriented code is easily testable: Dependency objects might be difficult or even impossible to instantiate, and object-oriented encapsulation makes testing potentially simple code difficult if it cannot easily be accessed. When this happens, then developers can resort to mock objects that simulate the complex dependencies, or circumvent object-oriented encapsulation and access private APIs directly through the use of, for example, Java reflection. Can automated unit test generation benefit from these techniques as well? In this paper we investigate this question by extending the EvoSuite unit test generation tool with the ability to directly access private APIs and to create mock objects using the popular Mockito framework. However, care needs to be taken that this does not impact the usefulness of the generated tests: For example, a test accessing a private field could later fail if that field is renamed, even if that renaming is part of a semantics-preserving refactoring. Such a failure would not be revealing a true regression bug, but is a false positive, which wastes the developer's time for investigating and fixing the test. Our experiments on the SF110 and Defects4J benchmarks confirm the anticipated improvements in terms of code coverage and bug finding, but also confirm the existence of false positives. However, by ensuring the test generator only uses mocking and reflection if there is no other way to reach some part of the code, their number remains small

Does Automated Unit Test Generation Really Help Software Testers? A Controlled Empirical Study

Work on automated test generation has produced several tools capable of generating test data which achieves high structural coverage over a program. In the absence of a specification, developers are expected to manually construct or verify the test oracle for each test input. Nevertheless, it is assumed that these generated tests ease the task of testing for the developer, as testing is reduced to checking the results of tests. While this assumption has persisted for decades, there has been no conclusive evidence to date confirming it. However, the limited adoption in industry indicates this assumption may not be correct, and calls into question the practical value of test generation tools. To investigate this issue, we performed two controlled experiments comparing a total of 97 subjects split between writing tests manually and writing tests with the aid of an automated unit test generation tool, EvoSuite. We found that, on one hand, tool support leads to clear improvements in commonly applied quality metrics such as code coverage (up to 300% increase). However, on the other hand, there was no measurable improvement in the number of bugs actually found by developers. Our results not only cast some doubt on how the research community evaluates test generation tools, but also point to improvements and future work necessary before automated test generation tools will be widely adopted by practitioners

Unit Test Generation During Software Development: EvoSuite Plugins for Maven, IntelliJ and Jenkins

Different techniques to automatically generate unit tests for object oriented classes have been proposed, but how to integrate these tools into the daily activities of software development is a little investigated question. In this paper, we report on our experience in supporting industrial partners in introducing the EVOSUITE automated JUnit test generation tool in their software development processes. The first step consisted of providing a plugin to the Apache Maven build infrastructure. The move from a research-oriented point-and-click tool to an automated step of the build process has implications on how developers interact with the tool and generated tests, and therefore, we produced a plugin for the popular IntelliJ Integrated Development Environment (IDE). As build automation is a core component of Continuous Integration (CI), we provide a further plugin to the Jenkins CI system, which allows developers to monitor the results of EVOSUITE and integrate generated tests in their source tree. In this paper, we discuss the resulting architecture of the plugins, and the challenges arising when building such plugins. Although the plugins described are targeted for the EVOSUITE tool, they can be adapted and their architecture can be reused for other test generation tools as well

A detailed investigation of the effectiveness of whole test suite generation

© 2016 The Author(s)A common application of search-based software testing is to generate test cases for all goals defined by a coverage criterion (e.g., lines, branches, mutants). Rather than generating one test case at a time for each of these goals individually, whole test suite generation optimizes entire test suites towards satisfying all goals at the same time. There is evidence that the overall coverage achieved with this approach is superior to that of targeting individual coverage goals. Nevertheless, there remains some uncertainty on (a) whether the results generalize beyond branch coverage, (b) whether the whole test suite approach might be inferior to a more focused search for some particular coverage goals, and (c) whether generating whole test suites could be optimized by only targeting coverage goals not already covered. In this paper, we perform an in-depth analysis to study these questions. An empirical study on 100 Java classes using three different coverage criteria reveals that indeed there are some testing goals that are only covered by the traditional approach, although their number is only very small in comparison with those which are exclusively covered by the whole test suite approach. We find that keeping an archive of already covered goals along with the tests covering them and focusing the search on uncovered goals overcomes this small drawback on larger classes, leading to an improved overall effectiveness of whole test suite generation