Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Sensor Interaction Failures in Mobile Applications

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1439))

Abstract

Mobile devices have a rich set of small-scale sensors which improve the functionalities possibilities. The growing use of mobile applications has aroused the interest of researchers in testing mobile applications. However, sensor interaction failures are a challenging and still a little-explored aspect of research. Unexpected behavior because the sensor interactions can introduce failures that manifest themselves in specific sensor configurations. Sensor interaction failures can compromise the mobile application’s quality and harm the user’s experience. We propose an approach for extending test suites of mobile applications in order to evaluate the sensor interactions aspects of mobile applications. We used eight sensors to verify the occurrence of sensor interaction failures. We generated all configurations considering the sensors enabled or disabled. We observed that some pairs of sensors cause failures in some applications including those not so obvious.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.traccar.org.

  2. 2.

    https://github.com/traccar/traccar-client-android/issues/390.

  3. 3.

    Apr 20, 2021.

  4. 4.

    https://github.com/androiddevnotes/awesome-android-kotlin-apps.

  5. 5.

    https://github.com/AlDanial/cloc.

  6. 6.

    A kind of test that runs on devices or emulators: https://developer.android.com/studio/test.

  7. 7.

    https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/sensors/sensors_position.

  8. 8.

    https://developer.android.com/about/versions/pie/power.

  9. 9.

    https://support.google.com/android/answer/9069335?hl=en.

  10. 10.

    https://support.google.com/android/answer/9083864?hl=en.

  11. 11.

    https://source.android.com/devices/sensors/sensors-off.

  12. 12.

    https://developer.android.com/training/testing/ui-automator.

  13. 13.

    https://developer.android.com/training/testing/junit-runner.

  14. 14.

    http://rasbt.github.io/mlxtend/user_guide/frequent_patterns/apriori/.

  15. 15.

    https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/exifinterface/media/ExifInterface.

  16. 16.

    https://developers.google.com/location-context/fused-location-provider.

  17. 17.

    https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3467281?hl=en.

  18. 18.

    https://github.com/quatic2021-sensorinterpaper/artifacts.

References

  1. Agrawal, R., Srikant, R., et al.: Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In: Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB, vol. 1215, pp. 487–499. Citeseer (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Apel, S., Speidel, H., Wendler, P., Rhein, A.V., Beyer, D.: Detection of feature interactions using feature-aware verification. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 372–375 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bowen, T.F., Dworack, F., Chow, C., Griffeth, N., Herman, G.E., Lin, Y.J.: The feature interaction problem in telecommunications systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering for Telecommunication Switching Systems (SETSS), pp. 59–62 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ceccato, M., Gazzola, L., Kifetew, F.M., Mariani, L., Orrú, M., Tonella, P.: Toward in-vivo testing of mobile applications. In: 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pp. 137–143. IEEE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Esteves, G., Figueiredo, E., Veloso, A., Viggiato, M., Ziviani, N.: Understanding machine learning software defect predictions. Autom. Softw. Eng. 27(3), 369–392 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-020-00277-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Farooq, U., Zhao, Z.: RuntimeDroid: restarting-free runtime change handling for Android apps. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, pp. 110–122 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ferreira, F., Vale, G., Diniz, J.P., Figueiredo, E.: Evaluating T-wise testing strategies in a community-wide dataset of configurable software systems. J. Syst. Softw. 179, 110990 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gambi, A., Bell, J., Zeller, A.: Practical test dependency detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation (ICST), pp. 1–11 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hornik, K., Grün, B., Hahsler, M.: arules-a computational environment for mining association rules and frequent item sets. J. Stat. Softw. 14(15), 1–25 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kong, P., Li, L., Gao, J., Liu, K., Bissyandé, T.F., Klein, J.: Automated testing of Android apps: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 68(1), 45–66 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kowalczyk, E., Cohen, M.B., Memon, A.M.: Configurations in Android testing: they matter. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Advances in Mobile App Analysis, pp. 1–6 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lu, Y., Pan, M., Zhai, J., Zhang, T., Li, X.: Preference-wise testing for Android applications. In: Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 268–278 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luo, C., Goncalves, J., Velloso, E., Kostakos, V.: A survey of context simulation for testing mobile context-aware applications. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 53(1), 1–39 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Machado, I., McGregor, J., Cavalcanti, Y., Almeida, E.: On strategies for testing software product lines: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. (IST) 56, 1183–1199 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marinho, E.H., Figueiredo, E.: PLATOOL: a functional test generation tool for mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, Tools Track, SBES 2020, pp. 548–553 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mendez-Porras, A., Quesada-Lopez, C., Jenkins, M.: Automated testing of mobile applications: a systematic map and review. In: Proceedings of the Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE), pp. 195–208 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morgado, I.C., Paiva, A.C.: The impact tool for Android testing. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3(EICS), 1–23 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen, S., Nguyen, H., Tran, N., Tran, H., Nguyen, T.: Feature-interaction Aware configuration prioritization for configurable code. In: Proceedings of the 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 489–501 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Oliveira, J., Viggiato, M., Santos, M., Figueiredo, E., Marques-Neto, H.: An empirical study on the impact of Android code smells on resource usage. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp. 314–313 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rubinov, K., Baresi, L.: What are we missing when testing our Android apps? Computer 51(4), 60–68 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahinoglu, M., Inckin, K., Aktas, M.S.: Mobile application verification: a systematic mapping study. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA), pp. 147–163 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Siegmund, N., et al.: Predicting performance via automated feature-interaction detection. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 167–177 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Soares, L.R., Schobbens, P., do Carmo Machado, I., de Almeida, E.S.: Feature interaction in software product line engineering: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. (IST) 98, 44–58 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tramontana, P., Amalfitano, D., Amatucci, N., Fasolino, A.R.: Automated functional testing of mobile applications: a systematic mapping study. Softw. Qual. J. 27(1), 149–201 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-018-9418-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vilkomir, S.: Multi-device coverage testing of mobile applications. Softw. Qual. J. 26(2), 197–215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-017-9357-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wei, L., Liu, Y., Cheung, S.C., Huang, H., Lu, X., Liu, X.: Understanding and detecting fragmentation-induced compatibility issues for Android apps. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 46(11), 1176–1199 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zein, S., Salleh, N., Grundy, J.: A systematic mapping study of mobile application testing techniques. J. Syst. Softw. 117, 334–356 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zolfaghari, B., Parizi, R.M., Srivastava, G., Haleimariam, Y.: Root causing, detecting, and fixing flaky tests: state of the art and future roadmap. Softw. Pract. Exp. 51(5), 1–17 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by Brazilian funding agencies: CNPq, CAPES, and FAPEMIG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

    Euler Horta Marinho, João P. Diniz, Fischer Ferreira & Eduardo Figueiredo

  2. Computer and Systems Department, Federal University of Ouro Preto, João Monlevade, MG, Brazil

    Euler Horta Marinho

Authors
  1. Euler Horta Marinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João P. Diniz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fischer Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eduardo Figueiredo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Euler Horta Marinho or Eduardo Figueiredo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Ana C. R. Paiva

  2. Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France

    Ana Rosa Cavalli

  3. University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

    Paula Ventura Martins

  4. University of Castila-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Ricardo Pérez-Castillo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Marinho, E.H., Diniz, J.P., Ferreira, F., Figueiredo, E. (2021). Evaluating Sensor Interaction Failures in Mobile Applications. In: Paiva, A.C.R., Cavalli, A.R., Ventura Martins, P., Pérez-Castillo, R. (eds) Quality of Information and Communications Technology. QUATIC 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1439. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85347-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85347-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85346-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85347-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation