| 1. |
- Feldt, Robert, et al.
(författare)
-
Test Set Diameter : Quantifying the Diversity of Sets of Test Cases
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Proceedings - 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST. - : IEEE Computer Society. - 9781509018260 ; , s. 223-233
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- A common and natural intuition among software testers is that test cases need to differ if a software system is to be tested properly and its quality ensured. Consequently, much research has gone into formulating distance measures for how test cases, their inputs and/or their outputs differ. However, common to these proposals is that they are data type specific and/or calculate the diversity only between pairs of test inputs, traces or outputs. We propose a new metric to measure the diversity of sets of tests: the test set diameter (TSDm). It extends our earlier, pairwise test diversity metrics based on recent advances in information theory regarding the calculation of the normalized compression distance (NCD) for multisets. A key advantage is that TSDm is a universal measure of diversity and so can be applied to any test set regardless of data type of the test inputs (and, moreover, to other test-related data such as execution traces). But this universality comes at the cost of greater computational effort compared to competing approaches. Our experiments on four different systems show that the test set diameter can help select test sets with higher structural and fault coverage than random selection even when only applied to test inputs. This can enable early test design and selection, prior to even having a software system to test, and complement other types of test automation and analysis. We argue that this quantification of test set diversity creates a number of opportunities to better understand software quality and provides practical ways to increase it.
|
|
| 2. |
- Marculescu, Bogdan, et al.
(författare)
-
Tester interactivity makes a difference in search-based software testing : A controlled experiment
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Information and Software Technology. - : Elsevier. - 0950-5849 .- 1873-6025. ; 78, s. 66-82
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: Search-based software testing promises to provide users with the ability to generate high quality test cases, and hence increase product quality, with a minimal increase in the time and effort required. The development of the Interactive Search-Based Software Testing (ISBST) system was motivated by a previous study to investigate the application of search-based software testing (SBST) in an industrial setting. ISBST allows users to interact with the underlying SBST system, guiding the search and assessing the results. An industrial evaluation indicated that the ISBST system could find test cases that are not created by testers employing manual techniques. The validity of the evaluation was threatened, however, by the low number of participants. Objective: This paper presents a follow-up study, to provide a more rigorous evaluation of the ISBST system. Method: To assess the ISBST system a two-way crossover controlled experiment was conducted with 58 students taking a Verification and Validation course. The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) is used to assess the workload experienced by the participants in the experiment. Results:The experimental results validated the hypothesis that the ISBST system generates test cases that are not found by the same participants employing manual testing techniques. A follow-up laboratory experiment also investigates the importance of interaction in obtaining the results. In addition to this main result, the subjective workload was assessed for each participant by means of the NASA-TLX tool. The evaluation showed that, while the ISBST system required more effort from the participants, they achieved the same performance. Conclusions: The paper provides evidence that the ISBST system develops test cases that are not found by manual techniques, and that interaction plays an important role in achieving that result. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
