skip to main content
10.1145/1370042.1370061acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A strategy for evaluating feasible and unfeasible test cases for the evolutionary testing of object-oriented software

Published:11 May 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Evolutionary Testing is an emerging methodology for automatically producing high quality test data. The focus of our on-going work is precisely on generating test data for the structural unit-testing of object-oriented Java programs. The primary objective is that of efficiently guiding the search process towards the definition of a test set that achieves full structural coverage of the test object.

However, the state problem of object-oriented programs requires specifying carefully fine-tuned methodologies that promote the traversal of problematic structures and difficult control-flow paths - which often involves the generation of complex and intricate test cases, that define elaborate state scenarios.

This paper proposes a methodology for evaluating the quality of both feasible and unfeasible test cases - i.e., those that are effectively completed and terminate with a call to the method under test, and those that abort prematurely because a runtime exception is thrown during test case execution. With our approach, unfeasible test cases are considered at certain stages of the evolutionary search, promoting diversity and enhancing the possibility of achieving full coverage.

References

  1. A. Arcuri and X. Yao. A memetic algorithm for test data generation of object-oriented software. In D. Srinivasan and L. Wang, editors, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages -, Singapore, 25-28 Sept. 2007. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, IEEE Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Arcuri and X. Yao. Search based testing of containers for object-oriented software. Technical Report CSR-07-3, University of Birmingham, School of Computer Science, Apr. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Barbey and A. Strohmeier. The problematics of testing object-oriented software. In M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton, editors, SQM'94 Second Conference on Software Quality Management, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 26-28 1994, volume 2, pages 411--426, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Y. Cheon, M. Kim, and A. Perumandla. A complete automation of unit testing for java programs. In H. R. Arabnia and H. Reza, editors, Software Engineering Research and Practice, pages 290--295. CSREA Press, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Harman. The current state and future of search based software engineering. In FOSE '07: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pages 342--357, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Kinneer, M. Dwyer, and G. Rothermel. Sofya: A exible framework for development of dynamic program analysis for java software. Technical Report TR-UNL-CSE-2006-0006, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 4 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (Complex Adaptive Systems). The MIT Press, December 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X. Liu, B. Wang, and H. Liu. Evolutionary search in the context of object-oriented programs. In MIC'05: Proceedings of the Sixth Metaheuristics International Conference, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Luke. ECJ 16: A Java evolutionary computation library. http://cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. T. Mantere and J. T. Alander. Evolutionary software engineering, a review. Appl. Soft Comput., 5(3):315--331, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. McMinn. Search-based software test data generation: A survey. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 14(2):105--156, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. McMinn and M. Holcombe. The state problem for evolutionary testing. In GECCO, pages 2488--2498, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. J. Montana. Strongly typed genetic programming. Technical Report #7866, 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA, 7 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. A. Müller, C. Lembeck, and H. Kuchen. A symbolic java virtual machine for test case generation. In M. H. Hamza, editor, IASTED Conf. on Software Engineering, pages 365--371. IASTED/ACTA Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. C. B. Ribeiro, F. F. de Vega, and M. Z. Rela. Using dynamic analysis of java bytecode for evolutionary object-oriented unit testing. In SBRC WTF 2007: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Testing and Fault Tolerance of the 25th Brazilian Symposium on Computer Networks and Distributed Systems, pages 143--156. Brazilian Computer Society (SBC), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. C. B. Ribeiro, M. Zenha-Rela, and F. F. de Vega. ecrash: a framework for performing evolutionary testing on third-party java components. In JAEM CEDI 2007: Proceedings of the 1st Jornadas sobre Algoritmos Evolutivos y Metaheuristicas of the 2nd Congreso Español de Informática, pages 137--144, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. C. B. Ribeiro, M. Zenha-Rela, and F. F. de Vega. An evolutionary approach for performing structural unit-testing on third-party object-oriented java software. In NICSO 2007: International Workshop on Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (to appear), Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 11 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Sagarna, A. Arcuri, and X. Yao. Estimation of distribution algorithms for testing object oriented software. In D. Srinivasan and L. Wang, editors, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages -, Singapore, 25-28 Sept. 2007. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, IEEE Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. A. Seesing and H.-G. GroSS. A genetic programming approach to automated test generation for object-oriented software. ITSSA, 1(2):127--134, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. Tonella. Evolutionary testing of classes. In ISSTA '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis, pages 119--128, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Wappler and F. Lammermann. Using evolutionary algorithms for the unit testing of object-oriented software. In GECCO '05: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 1053--1060, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Wappler and J. Wegener. Evolutionary Unit Testing Of Object-Oriented Software Using A Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithm. In CEC'06: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 851--858. IEEE, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Wappler and J. Wegener. Evolutionary unit testing of object-oriented software using strongly-typed genetic programming. In GECCO '06: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 1925--1932, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A strategy for evaluating feasible and unfeasible test cases for the evolutionary testing of object-oriented software

    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
      AST '08: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Automation of software test
      May 2008
      101 pages
      ISBN:9781605580302
      DOI:10.1145/1370042

      Copyright © 2008 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: 11 May 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Upcoming Conference

      ICSE 2025

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader