Automated Unit Testing of Evolving Software

As software programs evolve, developers need to ensure that new changes do not affect the originally intended functionality of the program. To increase their confidence, developers commonly write unit tests along with the program, and execute them after a change is made. However, manually writing these unit-tests is difficult and time-consuming, and as their number increases, so does the cost of executing and maintaining them. Automated test generation techniques have been proposed in the literature to assist developers in the endeavour of writing these tests. However, it remains an open question how well these tools can help with fault finding in practice, and maintaining these automatically generated tests may require extra effort compared to human written ones. This thesis evaluates the effectiveness of a number of existing automatic unit test generation techniques at detecting real faults, and explores how these techniques can be improved. In particular, we present a novel multi-objective search-based approach for generating tests that reveal changes across two versions of a program. We then investigate whether these tests can be used such that no maintenance effort is necessary. Our results show that overall, state-of-the-art test generation tools can indeed be effective at detecting real faults: collectively, the tools revealed more than half of the bugs we studied. We also show that our proposed alternative technique that is better suited to the problem of revealing changes, can detect more faults, and does so more frequently. However, we also find that for a majority of object-oriented programs, even a random search can achieve good results. Finally, we show that such change-revealing tests can be generated on demand in practice, without requiring them to be maintained over time

Revisiting the Relationship Between Fault Detection,Test Adequacy Criteria, and Test Set Size

The research community has long recognized a complex interrelationship between test set size, test adequacy criteria, and test effectiveness in terms of fault detection. However, there is substantial confusion about the role and importance of controlling for test set size when assessing and comparing test adequacy criteria. This paper makes the following contributions: (1) A review of contradictory analyses of the relationship between fault detection, test suite size, and test adequacy criteria. Specifically, this paper addresses the supposed contradiction of prior work and explains why test suite size is neither a confounding variable, as previously suggested,nor an independent variable that should be experimentally manipulated. (2) An explication and discussion of the experimental design and sampling strategies of prior work, together with a discussion of conceptual and statistical problems, and specific guidelines for future work. (3) A methodology for comparing test-adequacy criteria on an equal basis, which accounts for test suite size by treating it as a covariate. (4) An empirical evaluation that compares the effectiveness of coverage-based and mutation-based testing to one another and random testing. Additionally, this paper proposes probabilistic coupling, a methodology for approximating the representativeness of a set of test goals for a given set of real fault

How Do Automatically Generated Unit Tests Influence Software Maintenance?

Generating unit tests automatically saves time over writing tests manually and can lead to higher code coverage. However, automatically generated tests are usually not based on realistic scenarios, and are therefore generally considered to be less readable. This places a question mark over their practical value: Every time a test fails, a developer has to decide whether this failure has revealed a regression fault in the program under test, or whether the test itself needs to be updated. Does the fact that automatically generated tests are harder to read outweigh the time-savings gained by their automated generation, and render them more of a hindrance than a help for software maintenance? In order to answer this question, we performed an empirical study in which participants were presented with an automatically generated or manually written failing test, and were asked to identify and fix the cause of the failure. Our experiment and two replications resulted in a total of 150 data points based on 75 participants. Whilst maintenance activities take longer when working with automatically generated tests, we found developers to be equally effective with manually written and automatically generated tests. This has implications on how automated test generation is best used in practice, and it indicates a need for research into the generation of more realistic tests

Do Automatically Generated Unit Tests Find Real Faults? An Empirical Study of Effectiveness and Challenges (T)

Rather than tediously writing unit tests manually, tools can be used to generate them automatically - sometimes even resulting in higher code coverage than manual testing. But how good are these tests at actually finding faults? To answer this question, we applied three state-of-the-art unit test generation tools for Java (Randoop, EvoSuite, and Agitar) to the 357 real faults in the Defects4J dataset and investigated how well the generated test suites perform at detecting these faults. Although the automatically generated test suites detected 55.7% of the faults overall, only 19.9% of all the individual test suites detected a fault. By studying the effectiveness and problems of the individual tools and the tests they generate, we derive insights to support the development of automated unit test generators that achieve a higher fault detection rate. These insights include 1) improving the obtained code coverage so that faulty statements are executed in the first instance, 2) improving the propagation of faulty program states to an observable output, coupled with the generation of more sensitive assertions, and 3) improving the simulation of the execution environment to detect faults that are dependent on external factors such as date and time