skip to main content
10.1145/3412452.3423571acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Comparing transition trees test suites effectiveness for different mutation operators

Published:08 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research demonstrated that faults seeded mutation using operators can be representative of faults in real systems. In this paper, we study the relationship between the different operators used to insert mutants in the fault domain of the system under test and the effectiveness of different state machine test suites at killing those mutants. We are particularly interested in the effectiveness of two interrelated state machine testing strategies at finding different types of faults. Those are the round-trip paths strategy and the transition tree strategy. Using empirical evaluation, we compare the effectiveness of more than two thousand unique test suites at killing mutants seeded using eight different mutation operators. We perform experiments on four experimental objects and provide qualitative analysis of the results. We conclude that neither of the two studied strategies is more effective than the other at killing a certain type of mutants. However, the structure of the finite state machine and the nature of the system under test affect the type of faults detected by the different testing strategies.

References

  1. Paul Amman and Jeff Offutt. 2016. Introduction to Software Testing (2nd. ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. DOI: https://10.1017/9781316771273Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. James H. Andrews, Lionel C. Briand, and Yvan Labiche. 2005. Is Mutation an Appropriate Tool for Testing Experiments ? In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference of Software Engineering (ICSE), May 15-21, 2005, St. Louis, MO, 402-411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1062455.1062530 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. James H. Andrews, Lionel C. Briand, Yvan Labiche, and Akbar Siami Namin. 2006. Using Mutation Analysis for Assessing and Comparing Testing Coverage Criteria. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 32, 8 (Sept. 2006 ), 608-624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE. 2006.83 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Boris Beizer. 1990. Software Testing Techniques (2nd. ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Robert V. Binder. 1999. Testing Object-Oriented Systems : Models, Patterns, and Tools (1st. ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Tsun S. Chow. 1978. Testing Software Design Modeled by FiniteState Machines. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-4, 3 (May 1978 ), 178-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE. 1978.231496 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andre Takeshi Endo and Adenilso Simao. 2013. Evaluating Test Suite Characteristics, Cost, and Effectiveness of FSM-Based Testing Methods. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55, 6 ( June 2013 ), 1045-1062. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof. 2013. 01.001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Nina Elisabeth Holt, Lionel C. Briand, and Richard Torkar. 2014. Empirical Evaluations on the Cost-Effectiveness of State-Based testing: an Industrial Case Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 8 (Aug. 2014 ), 890-910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof. 2014. 02.011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nina Elisabeth Holt, Richard Torkar, Lionel Briand, and Kai Hansen. 2012. State-Based Testing: Industrial Evaluation of the CostEffectiveness of Round-Trip Path and Sneak-Path Strategies. In Proceedings of the IEEE 23rd International Symposium of Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), November 27-30, 2012, Dallas, TX, 321-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE. 2012.17 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rene Just, Franz Schweiggert, and Gregory M. Kapfhammer. 2011. MAJOR: An Efficient and Extensible Tool for Mutation Analysis in a Java Compiler. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), November 6-10, 2011, Lawrence, KS, 612-615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE. 2011.6100138 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rene. Just, Michael D. Ernst, and Gordon Fraser. 2014. Efficient Mutation Analysis by Propagating and Partitioning Infected Execution States. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), July 21-25, 2014, San Jose, CA, 315-326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2610384.2610388 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hoda A. Khalil. 2018. FSM Testing Based on Transition Trees and Complete Round Trip Paths Testing Criteria. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoda Khalil and Yvan Labiche. 2017. Finding All Breadth First Full Spanning Trees in a Directed Graph. In proceedings of the 41st International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), July 4-8, 2017, Turin, Italy, 372-377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC. 2017.128 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hoda Khalil and Yvan Labiche. 2017. State-Based Tests Suites Automatic Generation Tool (STAGE-1). In Proceedings of the 41st International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), July 4-8, 2017, Turin, Italy, 357-363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC. 2017.221 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Hoda Khalil and Yvan Labiche. 2017. On FSM-Based Testing: An Empirical Study: Complete Round-Trip Versus Transition Trees. In Proceedings of the IEEE 28th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), October 23-26, 2017, Toulouse, France, 305-315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE. 2017.34 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hoda Khalil and Yvan Labiche. 2017. FSM-Testing-TranstiontionTrees-and-RTP. Retrieved from https://github.com/hakhalil/FSMTesting-Transtiontion-Trees-and-RTP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David Lee and Mihalis Yannakakis. 1996. Principles and Methods of Testing Finite State Machines-A Survey. Proc. IEEE. 84, 8 ( August 1996 ), 1090-1123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/5.533956 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Yu Seung Ma, Jeff Offutt, and Yong Rae Kwon. 2005. MuJava: An Automated Class Mutation System. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 15, 2 ( June 2005 ), 97-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5555/1077303.1077304 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Samar Mouchawrab, Lionel C. Briand, Yvan Labiche, and Massimiliano Di Penta. 2011. Assessing, Comparing, and Combining State Machine-Based Testing and Structural Testing: A Series of Experiments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37, 2 (March-April 2011 ), 161-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE. 2010.32 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Adenilso Simão and Alexandre Petrenko. 2010. Fault CoverageDriven Incremental Test Generation. Comput. J. 53, 9 (November 2010 ), 1508-1522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxp073 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Comparing transition trees test suites effectiveness for different mutation operators

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        A-TEST 2020: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Automating TEST Case Design, Selection, and Evaluation
        November 2020
        24 pages
        ISBN:9781450381017
        DOI:10.1145/3412452

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 November 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader