The Search for the Laws of Automatic Random Testing

Can one estimate the number of remaining faults in a software system? A credible estimation technique would be immensely useful to project managers as well as customers. It would also be of theoretical interest, as a general law of software engineering. We investigate possible answers in the context of automated random testing, a method that is increasingly accepted as an effective way to discover faults. Our experimental results, derived from best-fit analysis of a variety of mathematical functions, based on a large number of automated tests of library code equipped with automated oracles in the form of contracts, suggest a poly-logarithmic law. Although further confirmation remains necessary on different code bases and testing techniques, we argue that understanding the laws of testing may bring significant benefits for estimating the number of detectable faults and comparing different projects and practices.Comment: 20 page

Randomized Quasi-Random Testing

Random testing is a fundamental testing technique that can be used to generate test cases for both hardware and software systems. Quasi-random testing was proposed as an enhancement to the cost-effectiveness of random testing: In addition to having similar computation overheads to random testing, it makes use of quasi-random sequences to generate low-discrepancy and low-dispersion test cases that help deliver high failure-detection effectiveness. Currently, few algorithms exist to generate quasi-random sequences, and these are mostly deterministic, rather than random. A previous study of quasi-random testing has examined two methods for randomizing quasi-random sequences to improve their applicability in testing. However, these randomization methods still have shortcomings - one method does not introduce much randomness to the test cases, while the other does not support incremental test case generation. In this paper, we present an innovative approach to incrementally randomizing quasi-random sequences. The test cases generated by this new approach show a high degree of randomness and evenness in distribution. We also conduct simulations and empirical studies to demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of our approach in software testing

Code coverage of adaptive random testing

Random testing is a basic software testing technique that can be used to assess the software reliability as well as to detect software failures. Adaptive random testing has been proposed to enhance the failure-detection capability of random testing. Previous studies have shown that adaptive random testing can use fewer test cases than random testing to detect the first software failure. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the performance of adaptive random testing and random testing from another perspective, that of code coverage. As shown in various investigations, a higher code coverage not only brings a higher failure-detection capability, but also improves the effectiveness of software reliability estimation. We conduct a series of experiments based on two categories of code coverage criteria: structure-based coverage, and fault-based coverage. Adaptive random testing can achieve higher code coverage than random testing with the same number of test cases. Our experimental results imply that, in addition to having a better failure-detection capability than random testing, adaptive random testing also delivers a higher effectiveness in assessing software reliability, and a higher confidence in the reliability of the software under test even when no failure is detected

Code coverage of adaptive random testing

Random testing is a basic software testing technique that can be used to assess the software reliability as well as to detect software failures. Adaptive random testing has been proposed to enhance the failure-detection capability of random testing. Previous studies have shown that adaptive random testing can use fewer test cases than random testing to detect the first software failure. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the performance of adaptive random testing and random testing from another perspective, that of code coverage. As shown in various investigations, a higher code coverage not only brings a higher failure-detection capability, but also improves the effectiveness of software reliability estimation. We conduct a series of experiments based on two categories of code coverage criteria: structure-based coverage, and fault-based coverage. Adaptive random testing can achieve higher code coverage than random testing with the same number of test cases. Our experimental results imply that, in addition to having a better failure-detection capability than random testing, adaptive random testing also delivers a higher effectiveness in assessing software reliability, and a higher confidence in the reliability of the software under test even when no failure is detected

Application of a failure driven test profile in random testing

Random testing techniques have been extensively used in reliability assessment, as well as in debug testing. When used to assess software reliability, random testing selects test cases based on an operational profile; while in the context of debug testing, random testing often uses a uniform distribution. However, generally neither an operational profile nor a uniform distribution is chosen from the perspective of maximizing the effectiveness of failure detection. Adaptive random testing has been proposed to enhance the failure detection capability of random testing by evenly spreading test cases over the whole input domain. In this paper, we propose a new test profile, which is different from both the uniform distribution, and operational profiles. The aim of the new test profile is to maximize the effectiveness of failure detection. We integrate this new test profile with some existing adaptive random testing algorithms, and develop a family of new random testing algorithms. These new algorithms not only distribute test cases more evenly, but also have better failure detection capabilities than the corresponding original adaptive random testing algorithms. As a consequence, they perform better than the pure random testing

Random Testing For Language Design

Property-based random testing can facilitate formal verification, exposing errors early on in the proving process and guiding users towards correct specifications and implementations. However, effective random testing often requires users to write custom generators for well-distributed random data satisfying complex logical predicates, a task which can be tedious and error prone. In this work, I aim to reduce the cost of property-based testing by making such generators easier to write, read and maintain. I present a domain-specific language, called Luck, in which generators are conveniently expressed by decorating predicates with lightweight annotations to control both the distribution of generated values and the amount of constraint solving that happens before each variable is instantiated. I also aim to increase the applicability of testing to formal verification by bringing advanced random testing techniques to the Coq proof assistant. I describe QuickChick, a QuickCheck clone for Coq, and improve it by incorporating ideas explored in the context of Luck to automatically derive provably correct generators for data constrained by inductive relations. Finally, I evaluate both QuickChick and Luck in a variety of complex case studies from programming languages literature, such as information-flow abstract machines and type systems for lambda calculi

Stateful Testing: Finding More Errors in Code and Contracts

Automated random testing has shown to be an effective approach to finding faults but still faces a major unsolved issue: how to generate test inputs diverse enough to find many faults and find them quickly. Stateful testing, the automated testing technique introduced in this article, generates new test cases that improve an existing test suite. The generated test cases are designed to violate the dynamically inferred contracts (invariants) characterizing the existing test suite. As a consequence, they are in a good position to detect new errors, and also to improve the accuracy of the inferred contracts by discovering those that are unsound. Experiments on 13 data structure classes totalling over 28,000 lines of code demonstrate the effectiveness of stateful testing in improving over the results of long sessions of random testing: stateful testing found 68.4% new errors and improved the accuracy of automatically inferred contracts to over 99%, with just a 7% time overhead.Comment: 11 pages, 3 figure

Adaptive random testing by exclusion through test profile

One major objective of software testing is to reveal software failures such that program bugs can be removed. Random testing is a basic and simple software testing technique, but its failure-detection effectiveness is often controversial. Based on the common observation that program inputs causing software failures tend to cluster into contiguous regions, some researchers have proposed that an even spread of test cases should enhance the failure-detection effectiveness of random testing. Adaptive random testing refers to a family of algorithms to evenly spread random test cases based on various notions. Restricted random testing, an algorithm to implement adaptive random testing by the notion of exclusion, defines an exclusion region around each previously executed test case, and selects test cases only from outside all exclusion regions. Although having a high failure-detection effectiveness, restricted random testing has a very high computation overhead, and it rigidly discards all test cases inside any exclusion region, some of which may reveal software failures. In this paper, we propose a new method to implement adaptive random testing by exclusion, where test cases are simply selected based on a well-designed test profile. The new method has a low computation overhead and it does not omit any possible program inputs that can detect failures. Our experimental results show that the new method not only spreads test cases more evenly but also brings a higher failure-detection effectiveness than random testing