Faster Mutation Analysis via Equivalence Modulo States

Mutation analysis has many applications, such as asserting the quality of test suites and localizing faults. One important bottleneck of mutation analysis is scalability. The latest work explores the possibility of reducing the redundant execution via split-stream execution. However, split-stream execution is only able to remove redundant execution before the first mutated statement. In this paper we try to also reduce some of the redundant execution after the execution of the first mutated statement. We observe that, although many mutated statements are not equivalent, the execution result of those mutated statements may still be equivalent to the result of the original statement. In other words, the statements are equivalent modulo the current state. In this paper we propose a fast mutation analysis approach, AccMut. AccMut automatically detects the equivalence modulo states among a statement and its mutations, then groups the statements into equivalence classes modulo states, and uses only one process to represent each class. In this way, we can significantly reduce the number of split processes. Our experiments show that our approach can further accelerate mutation analysis on top of split-stream execution with a speedup of 2.56x on average.Comment: Submitted to conferenc

Empirical Evaluation of Test Coverage for Functional Programs

The correlation between test coverage and test effectiveness is important to justify the use of coverage in practice. Existing results on imperative programs mostly show that test coverage predicates effectiveness. However, since functional programs are usually structurally different from imperative ones, it is unclear whether the same result may be derived and coverage can be used as a prediction of effectiveness on functional programs. In this paper we report the first empirical study on the correlation between test coverage and test effectiveness on functional programs. We consider four types of coverage: as input coverages, statement/branch coverage and expression coverage, and as oracle coverages, count of assertions and checked coverage. We also consider two types of effectiveness: raw effectiveness and normalized effectiveness. Our results are twofold. (1) In general the findings on imperative programs still hold on functional programs, warranting the use of coverage in practice. (2) On specific coverage criteria, the results may be unexpected or different from the imperative ones, calling for further studies on functional programs