Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2635868.2666610acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A variability perspective of mutation analysis

Published: 11 November 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Mutation testing is an effective technique for either improving or generating fault-finding test suites. It creates defective or incorrect program artifacts of the program under test and evaluates the ability of test suites to reveal them. Despite being effective, mutation is costly since it requires assessing the test cases with a large number of defective artifacts. Even worse, some of these artifacts are behaviourally ``equivalent'' to the original one and hence, they unnecessarily increase the testing effort. We adopt a variability perspective on mutation analysis. We model a defective artifact as a transition system with a specific feature selected and consider it as a member of a mutant family. The mutant family is encoded as a Featured Transition System, a compact formalism initially dedicated to model-checking of software product lines. We show how to evaluate a test suite against the set of all candidate defects by using mutant families. We can evaluate all the considered defects at the same time and isolate some equivalent mutants. We can also assist the test generation process and efficiently consider higher-order mutants.

References

[1]
M. Acher, A. Cleve, G. Perrouin, P. Heymans, C. Vanbeneden, P. Collet, and P. Lahire. On extracting feature models from product descriptions. In VaMoS, pages 45–54, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
[2]
B. K. Aichernig, H. Brandl, E. Jöbstl, W. Krenn, R. Schlick, and S. Tiran. Killing strategies for model-based mutation testing. STVR, 2014.
[3]
B. K. Aichernig, M. Weiglhofer, and F. Wotawa. Improving fault-based conformance testing. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 220(1):63–77, 2008.
[4]
P. Ammann, M. E. Delamaro, and J. Offutt. Establishing theoretical minimal sets of mutants. In ICST, pages 21–30. IEEE, 2014.
[5]
P. E. Ammann, P. E. Black, and W. Majurski. Using model checking to generate tests from specifications. In FEM, pages 46–54. IEEE, 1998.
[6]
N. Bombieri, F. Fummi, and G. Pravadelli. A mutation model for the SystemC TLM 2.0 communication interfaces. In DATE, pages 396–401. ACM, 2008.
[7]
Q. Boucher, G. Perrouin, and P. Heymans. Deriving configuration interfaces from feature models: A vision paper. In VaMoS, pages 37–44, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
[8]
A. Classen, M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, A. Legay, and J.-F. Raskin. Featured transition systems: Foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to ltl model checking. IEEE TSE, 39(8):1069–1089, 2013.
[9]
M. Cohen, M. Dwyer, and J. Shi. Interaction testing of highly-configurable systems in the presence of constraints. In ISSTA, pages 129–139, 2007.
[10]
M. Cordy, A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Provelines: A product-line of verifiers for software product lines. In SPLC ’13 Workshops, pages 141–146. ACM, 2013.
[11]
M. Cordy, A. Classen, G. Perrouin, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, and A. Legay. Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In M. Glinz, G. C. Murphy, and M. Pezzè, editors, ICSE, pages 672–682. IEEE, 2012.
[12]
R. A. DeMillo and A. J. Offutt. Constraint-based automatic test data generation. IEEE TSE, 17(9):900–910, 1991.
[13]
X. Devroey, G. Perrouin, M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, A. Legay, and P. Heymans. Towards statistical prioritization for software product lines testing. In VaMoS, pages 10:1–10:7. ACM, 2014.
[14]
X. Devroey, G. Perrouin, A. Legay, M. Cordy, P.-y. Schobbens, and P. Heymans. Coverage Criteria for Behavioural Testing of Software Product Lines. In ISoLA. Springer, 2014.
[15]
S. C. P. F. Fabbri, J. C. Maldonado, P. C. Masiero, and M. E. Delamaro. Proteum/fsm: A tool to support finite state machine validation based on mutation testing. In SCCC, pages 96–104. IEEE Computer Society, 1999.
[16]
S. C. P. F. Fabbri, J. C. Maldonado, T. Sugeta, and P. C. Masiero. Mutation testing applied to validate specifications based on Statecharts. In SRE, pages 210–219. IEEE, 1999.
[17]
C. Henard, M. Papadakis, G. Perrouin, J. Klein, and Y. Le Traon. Towards automated testing and fixing of re-engineered feature models. In ICSE, pages 1245–1248. IEEE, May 2013.
[18]
C. Henard, M. Papadakis, G. Perrouin, J. Klein, and Y. L. Traon. Multi-objective test generation for software product lines. In SPLC, pages 62–71. ACM, 2013.
[19]
Y. Jia and M. Harman. MILU: A Customizable, Runtime-Optimized Higher-Order Mutation Testing Tool for the Full C Language. In TAIC-PART, pages 94–98, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society.
[20]
Y. Jia and M. Harman. An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. IEEE TSE, 37(5):649–678, 2011.
[21]
M. F. Johansen, Ø. Haugen, F. Fleurey, A. G. Eldegard, and T. Syversen. Generating better partial covering arrays by modeling weights on sub-product lines. In MoDELS, pages 269–284. Springer, 2012.
[22]
K. C. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, and A. Spencer Peterson. Feature-Oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report, Soft. Eng. Inst., Carnegie Mellon Univ., 1990.
[23]
C. Kästner, A. von Rhein, S. Erdweg, J. Pusch, S. Apel, T. Rendel, and K. Ostermann. Toward variability-aware testing. In FOSD, pages 1–8. ACM, 2012.
[24]
C. H. P. Kim, S. Khurshid, and D. S. Batory. Shared execution for efficiently testing product lines. In ISSRE, pages 221–230. IEEE, 2012.
[25]
D. Lorenzoli, L. Mariani, and M. Pezzè. Automatic generation of software behavioral models. In ICSE, pages 501–510, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
[26]
L. Madeyski, W. Orzeszyna, R. Torkar, and M. Jozala. Overcoming the equivalent mutant problem: A systematic literature review and a comparative experiment of second order mutation. IEEE TSE, 40(1):23–42, Jan 2014.
[27]
H. V. Nguyen, C. Kästner, and T. N. Nguyen. Exploring variability-aware execution for testing plugin-based web applications. In ICSE. IEEE, 2014.
[28]
J. Offutt. A mutation carol: Past, present and future. Information & Software Technology, 53(10):1098––1107, 2011.
[29]
G. Perrouin, S. Oster, S. Sen, J. Klein, B. Baudry, and Y. L. Traon. Pairwise testing for software product lines: comparison of two approaches. Soft. Qual. Journal, 20(3-4):605–643, 2012.
[30]
R. H. Untch, A. J. Offutt, and M. J. Harrold. Mutation analysis using mutant schemata. In ISSTA, pages 139–148. ACM, 1993.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Detecting Faults vs. Revealing Failures: Exploring the Missing Link2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)10.1109/QRS62785.2024.00021(115-126)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2020)Measuring effectiveness of sample-based product-line testingACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3393934.327813053:9(119-133)Online publication date: 7-Apr-2020
  • (2019)A systematic mapping study on higher order mutation testingJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2019.04.031154:C(92-109)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
FSE 2014: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering
November 2014
856 pages
ISBN:9781450330565
DOI:10.1145/2635868
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 November 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Featured Transition Systems
  2. Mutation Testing

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGSOFT/FSE'14
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 17 of 128 submissions, 13%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Detecting Faults vs. Revealing Failures: Exploring the Missing Link2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)10.1109/QRS62785.2024.00021(115-126)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2020)Measuring effectiveness of sample-based product-line testingACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3393934.327813053:9(119-133)Online publication date: 7-Apr-2020
  • (2019)A systematic mapping study on higher order mutation testingJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2019.04.031154:C(92-109)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
  • (2018)Measuring effectiveness of sample-based product-line testingProceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences10.1145/3278122.3278130(119-133)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2018
  • (2018)Equivalent Mutants in Configurable SystemsProceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3168365.3168379(11-18)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2018
  • (2018)Mutation operators for feature‐oriented software product linesSoftware Testing, Verification and Reliability10.1002/stvr.167629:1-2Online publication date: 26-Jul-2018
  • (2017)Efficient mutation testing in configurable systemsProceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Variability and Complexity in Software Design10.5555/3106050.3106052(2-8)Online publication date: 20-May-2017
  • (2017)Faster mutation analysis via equivalence modulo statesProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3092703.3092714(295-306)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2017
  • (2017)Efficient Mutation Testing in Configurable Systems2017 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Variability and Complexity in Software Design (VACE)10.1109/VACE.2017.3(2-8)Online publication date: May-2017
  • (2017)On Featured Transition SystemsSOFSEM 2017: Theory and Practice of Computer Science10.1007/978-3-319-51963-0_35(453-463)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2017
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media