Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Balancing Frequencies and Fault Detection in the In-Parameter-Order Algorithm

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The In-Parameter-Order (IPO) algorithm is a widely used strategy for the construction of software test suites for combinatorial testing (CT) whose goal is to reveal faults triggered by interactions among parameters. Variants of IPO have been shown to produce test suites within reasonable amounts of time that are often not much larger than the smallest test suites known. When an entire test suite is executed, all faults that arise from t-way interactions for some fixed t are surely found. However, when tests are executed one at a time, it is desirable to detect a fault as early as possible so that it can be repaired. The basic IPO strategies of horizontal and vertical growth address test suite size, but not the early detection of faults. In this paper, the growth strategies in IPO are modified to attempt to evenly distribute the values of each parameter across the tests. Together with a reordering strategy that we add, this modification to IPO improves the rate of fault detection dramatically (improved by 31% on average). Moreover, our modifications always reduce generation time (2 times faster on average) and in some cases also reduce test suite size.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birnbaum Z W. On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system. In Multivariate Analysis, Krishnaiah P R (ed.), New York: Academic Press, 1969, pp.591-592.

  2. Kuo W, Zhu X. Relations and generalizations of importance measures in reliability. IEEE Trans. Rel., 2012, 61(3): 659–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuo W, Zhu X. Some recent advances on importance measures in reliability. IEEE Trans. Rel., 2012, 61(2): 344–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anand S, Burke E K, Chen T Y et al. An orchestrated survey of methodologies for automated software test case generation. J. Sys. Software, 2013, 86(8): 1978–2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen T Y, Kuo F C, Liu H et al. Code coverage of adaptive random testing. IEEE Trans. Rel., 2013, 62(1): 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grindal M, Offutt J, Andler S F. Combination testing strategies: A survey. Softw. Test. Verif. Rel., 2005, 15(3): 167–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hao D, Zhang L M, Zhang L et al. A unified test-case prioritization approach. ACM Trans. Soft. Eng. Method, 2014, 24(2): 10:1–10:31.

  8. Harman M, McMinn P. A theoretical and empirical study of search-based testing: Local, global, and hybrid search. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2010, 36(2): 226–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nie C H, Leung H. A survey of combinatorial testing. ACM Comput. Surv., 2011, 43(2): 11:1–11:29.

  10. Nebut C, Fleurey F, Le Traon Y et al. Automatic test generation: A use case driven approach. IEEE. Trans. Software Eng., 2006, 32(3): 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Perrouin G, Oster S, Sen S et al. Pairwise testing for software product lines: Comparison of two approaches. Software. Qual. J., 2012, 20(3/4): 605–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xie T, Zhang L, Xiao X et al. Cooperative software testing and analysis: Advances and challenges. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2014, 29(4): 713–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yoo S, Harman M. Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: A survey. Softw. Test. Verif. Rel., 2012, 22(2): 67–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang D M, Xie T. Software analytics: Achievements and challenges. In Proc. the 35th Int. Conf. Software Eng., May 2013, p.1487.

  15. Yu K, Lin M, Chen J et al. Towards automated debugging in software evolution: Evaluating delta debugging on real regression bugs from the developers’ perspectives. J. Sys. Software, 2012, 85(10): 2305–2317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bryce R C, Colbourn C J. One-test-at-a-time heuristic search for interaction test suites. In Proc. the 9th Annu. Conf. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Jul. 2007, pp.1082-1089.

  17. Kuhn D R, Reilly M J. An investigation of the applicability of design of experiments to software testing. In Proc. the 27th Annu. NASA Goddard Workshop on Software Eng., Dec. 2002, pp.91-95.

  18. Kuhn D R, Wallace D R, Gallo Jr J A. Software fault interactions and implications for software testing. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2004, 30(6): 418–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen M B, Dwyer M B, Shi J. Constructing interaction test suites for highly-configurable systems in the presence of constraints: A greedy approach. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2008, 34(5): 633–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lei Y, Kacker R, Kuhn D R et al. IPOG/IPOG-D: Efficient test generation for multi-way combinatorial testing. Softw. Test. Verif. Rel., 2008, 18(3): 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tung Y W, Aldiwan W S. Automating test case generation for the new generation mission software system. In Proc. IEEE Aerospace Con., March 2000, pp.431-437.

  22. Wallace D R, Kuhn D R. Failure modes in medical device software: An analysis of 15 years of recall data. Int. J. Rel., Quality and Safety Eng., 2001, 8(4): 351–371.

  23. Cohen D M, Dalal S R, Kajla A et al. The automatic efficient tests generator (AETG) system. In Proc. the 5th Int. Sympo. Software Rel. Eng., Nov. 1994, pp.303-309.

  24. Bryce R C, Colbourn C J. The density algorithm for pairwise interaction testing. Softw. Test. Verif. Rel., 2007, 17(3): 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bryce R C, Colbourn C J. A density-based greedy algorithm for higher strength covering arrays. Softw. Test. Verif. Rel., 2009, 19(1): 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lei Y, Tai K C. In-parameter-order: A test generation strategy for pairwise testing. In Proc. the 3rd Int. Symp. High-Assurance Sys. Eng., Nov. 1998, pp.254-261.

  27. Lei Y, Kacker R, Kuhn D R et al. IPOG: A general strategy for t-way software testing. In Proc. the 14th Annu. Int. Conf. Worshop. Eng. Computer-Based Sys., March 2007, pp.549-556.

  28. Forbes M, Lawrence J, Lei Y, Kacker R N, Kuhn D R. Refining the in-parameter-order strategy for constructing covering arrays. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2008, 113(5): 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen M B, Gibbons P B, Mugridge W B et al. Constructing test cases for interaction testing. In Proc. the 25th Int. Conf. Software Eng., May 2003, pp.38-48.

  30. Bryce R C, Colbourn C J. Expected time to detection of interaction faults. J. Combin. Mathematics and Combin. Comput., 2013, 86: 87–110.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Rothermel G, Untch R H, Chu C et al. Prioritizing test cases for regression testing. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2001, 27(10): 929–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Qu X, Cohen M B. A study in prioritization for higher strength combinatorial testing. In Proc. the 6th Int. Con. Software Testing, Verification and Validation, the 2nd Int. Workshops on Combinatorial Testing, March 2013, pp.285-294.

  33. Qu X. Configuration aware prioritization techniques in regression testing. In Proc. the 31st Int. Conf. Software Engineering, Companion Volume, May 2009, pp.375-378.

  34. Qu X, Cohen M B, Rothermel G. Configuration-aware regression testing: An empirical study of sampling and prioritization. In Proc. Int. Symp. Software Tesing and Analysis, July 2008, pp.75-86.

  35. Bryce R C, Colbourn C J. Test prioritization for pairwise interaction coverage. In Proc. the 1st Int. Workshop on Advances in Model-Based Testing, May 2005.

  36. Bryce R C, Colbourn C J. Prioritized interaction testing for pair-wise coverage with seeding and constraints. Inform. Software Tech., 2006, 48(10): 960–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Huang R, Chen J, Li Z, Wang R, Lu Y. Adaptive random prioritization for interaction test suites. In Proc. the 29th Symp. Appl. Comput., March 2014, pp.1058-1063.

  38. Petke J, Yoo S, Cohen M B, Harman M. Efficiency and early fault detection with lower and higher strength combinatorial interaction testing. In Proc. the 12th Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conf. and the ACM SIGSOFT Symp. the Foundations of Software Eng. (ESEC/FSE 2013), August 2013, pp.26-36.

  39. Qu X, Cohen M B, Woolf K M. Combinatorial interaction regression testing: A study of test case generation and prioritization. In Proc. the 23rd Int. Conf. Software Maintenance, Oct. 2007, pp.255-264.

  40. Huang R, Chen J, Zhang T, Wang R, Lu Y. Prioritizing variable-strength covering array. In Proc. the 37th IEEE Annu. Computer Software and Applications Conf., July 2013, pp.502-511.

  41. Huang R, Xie X, Towey D, Chen T Y, Lu Y, Chen J. Prioritization of combinatorial test cases by incremental interaction coverage. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Know., 2014, 23(10): 1427–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bryce R C, Memon A M. Test suite prioritization by interaction coverage. In Proc. Workshop on Domain Specific Approaches to Software Test Automation, September 2007, pp.1-7.

  43. Lei Y, Kuhn D R. Advanced combinatorial testing suite (ACTS). http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/acts/index.html, Aug. 2015.

  44. Hutchins M, Foster H, Goradia T et al. Experiments of the effectiveness of dataflow and control-flow-based test adequacy criteria. In Proc. the 16th Int. Conf. Software Eng., May 1994, pp.191-200.

  45. Kuhn D R, Okun V. Pseudo-exhaustive testing for software. In Proc. the 30th Annu. IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop, April 2006, pp.153-158.

  46. Soh Z H C, Abdullah S A C, Zamil K Z. A distributed tway test suite generation using “One-Parameter-at-a-Time” approach. Int. J. Advance Soft Compu. Appl., 2013, 5(3): 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Li X, Dong Z, Wu H et al. Refining a randomized postoptimization method for covering arrays. In Proc. the 7th IEEE Int. Conf. Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), March 31-April 4, 2014, pp.143-152.

  48. Nayeri P, Colbourn C J, Konjevod G. Randomized postoptimization of covering arrays. Eur. J. Combin., 2013, 34(1): 91–103.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Software Development Environment, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China

    Shi-Wei Gao, Jiang-Hua Lv, Bing-Lei Du & Shi-Long Ma

  2. School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-8809, U.S.A.

    Charles J. Colbourn

Authors
  1. Shi-Wei Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiang-Hua Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bing-Lei Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles J. Colbourn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shi-Long Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shi-Wei Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, SW., Lv, JH., Du, BL. et al. Balancing Frequencies and Fault Detection in the In-Parameter-Order Algorithm. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 30, 957–968 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-015-1574-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-015-1574-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation