15,062 research outputs found

    Semantic mutation testing

    Get PDF
    This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version can be obtained from the link below - Copyright @ 2011 ElsevierMutation testing is a powerful and flexible test technique. Traditional mutation testing makes a small change to the syntax of a description (usually a program) in order to create a mutant. A test suite is considered to be good if it distinguishes between the original description and all of the (functionally non-equivalent) mutants. These mutants can be seen as representing potential small slips and thus mutation testing aims to produce a test suite that is good at finding such slips. It has also been argued that a test suite that finds such small changes is likely to find larger changes. This paper describes a new approach to mutation testing, called semantic mutation testing. Rather than mutate the description, semantic mutation testing mutates the semantics of the language in which the description is written. The mutations of the semantics of the language represent possible misunderstandings of the description language and thus capture a different class of faults. Since the likely misunderstandings are highly context dependent, this context should be used to determine which semantic mutants should be produced. The approach is illustrated through examples with statecharts and C code. The paper also describes a semantic mutation testing tool for C and the results of experiments that investigated the nature of some semantic mutation operators for C

    FORTEST: Formal methods and testing

    Get PDF
    Formal methods have traditionally been used for specification and development of software. However there are potential benefits for the testing stage as well. The panel session associated with this paper explores the usefulness or otherwise of formal methods in various contexts for improving software testing. A number of different possibilities for the use of formal methods are explored and questions raised. The contributors are all members of the UK FORTEST Network on formal methods and testing. Although the authors generally believe that formal methods are useful in aiding the testing process, this paper is intended to provoke discussion. Dissenters are encouraged to put their views to the panel or individually to the authors

    Disease severity adversely affects delivery of dialysis in acute renal failure

    Get PDF
    Background/Aims: Methods of intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) dose quantification in acute renal failure (ARF) are not well defined. This observational study was designed to evaluate the impact of disease activity on delivered single pool Kt/V-urea in ARF patients. Methods: 100 patients with severe ARF (acute intrinsic renal disease in 18 patients, nephrotoxic acute tubular necrosis in 38 patients, and septic ARF in 44 patients) were analyzed during four consecutive sessions of IHD, performed for 3.5-5 h every other day or daily. Target IHD dose was a single pool Kt/V-urea of 1.2 or more per dialysis session for all patients. Prescribed Kt/V-urea was calculated from desired dialyzer clearance (K), desired treatment time (t) and anthropometric estimates for urea distribution volume (V). The desired clearance (K) was estimated from prescribed blood flow rate and manufacturer's charts of in vivo data obtained in maintenance dialysis patients. Delivered single pool Kt/V-urea was calculated using the Daugirdas equation. Results: None of the patients had prescription failure of the target dose. The delivered IHD doses were substantially lower than the prescribed Kt/V values, particularly in ARF patients with sepsis/septic shock. Stratification according to disease severity revealed that all patients with isolated ARF, but none with 3 or more organ failures and none who needed vasopressive support received the target dose. Conclusion: Prescription of target IHD dose by single pool Kt/V-urea resulted in suboptimal dialysis dose delivery in critically ill patients. Numerous patient-related and treatment-immanent factors acting in concert reduced the delivered dose. Copyright (C) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
    corecore