Oscar Luis Vera-Pérez
ABSTRACT
Descartes is a tool that implements extreme mutation operators and aims at finding pseudo-tested methods in Java projects. It leverages the efficient transformation and runtime features of PITest. The demonstration compares Descartes with Gregor, the default mutation engine provided by PITest, in a set of real open source projects. It considers the execution time, number of mutants created and the relationship between the mutation scores produced by both engines. It provides some insights on the main features exposed byDescartes.
- Henry Coles, Thomas Laurent, Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, and Anthony Ventresque. 2016. PIT: A Practical Mutation Testing Tool for Java (Demo). In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 449–452. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2948707Google Scholar
- Richard A. DeMillo, Richard J. Lipton, and Frederick G. Sayward. 1979. Program mutation: A new approach to program testing. Infotech State of the Art Report, Software Testing 2, 1979 (1979), 107–126.Google Scholar
- Lech Madeyski, Wojciech Orzeszyna, Richard Torkar, and Mariusz Józala. 2014. Overcoming the Equivalent Mutant Problem: A Systematic Literature Review and a Comparative Experiment of Second Order Mutation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40, 1 (Jan. 2014), 23–42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jakub Možucha and Bruno Rossi. 2016. Is Mutation Testing Ready to Be Adopted Industry-Wide?. In Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer, Cham, 217–232. 978-3-319-49094-6_14Google Scholar
- Rainer Niedermayr, Elmar Juergens, and Stefan Wagner. 2016. Will my tests tell me if I break this code?. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Continuous Software Evolution and Delivery. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 23–29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oscar Luis Vera-Pérez, Benjamin Danglot, Martin Monperrus, and Benoit Baudry. 2018. A Comprehensive Study of Pseudo-tested Methods. arXiv:1807.05030 {cs} (July 2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05030 arXiv: 1807.05030.Google Scholar
- 2 https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/ Abstract 1 Introduction 2 An overview of Descartes 3 Descartes VS Gregor 4 Pseudo-tested methods 5 Demonstration scope 6 Supporting Materials ReferencesGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Descartes: a PITest engine to detect pseudo-tested methods: tool demonstration
Recommendations
Checked Coverage and Object Branch Coverage: New Alternatives for Assessing Student-Written Tests
SIGCSE '15: Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationMany educators currently use code coverage metrics to assess student-written software tests. While test adequacy criteria such as statement or branch coverage can also be used to measure the thoroughness of a test suite, they have limitations. Coverage ...
A comprehensive study of pseudo-tested methods
Pseudo-tested methods are defined as follows: they are covered by the test suite, yet no test case fails when the method body is removed, i.e., when all the effects of this method are suppressed. This intriguing concept was coined in 2016, by Niedermayr ...
Mutation testing cost reduction by clustering overlapped mutants
We defined the term conditionally-overlapped (c-overlapped) mutants.C-overlapped mutants are expected to produce the same results against a test case.Clustering c-overlapped mutants effectively reduces the cost of mutation testing.Clustering c-...
Comments