Generating test data for both paths coverage and faults detection using genetic algorithms: multi-path case

Abstract

Generating test data that can expose the faults of the program is an important issue in software testing. Although previous methods of covering path can generate test data to traverse target path, the test data generated by these methods are difficult in detecting some low-probabilistic faults that lie on the covered paths. We present a method of generating test data for covering multiple paths to detect faults in this study. First, we transform the problem of covering multiple paths and detecting faults into a multi-objective optimization problem with constraint, and construct a mathematical model for it. Then, we give a strategy of solving the model based on a weighted genetic algorithm. Finally, we apply our method to several real-world programs, and compare it with several methods. The experimental results confirm that the proposed method can more efficiently generate test data that not only traverse the target paths but also detect faults lying in them than other methods.

Keywords

software testing / multiple paths coverage / faults detection / multi-objective optimization

References

[1] Ahmed M A, Hermadi I. GA-based multiple paths test data generator. Computer & Operations Research, 2008, 35(10): 3107-3124

[2] Alander J T, Mantere T, Turunen P. Genetic algorithm based software testing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms. 1997, 325-328

[3] Srivastava1 P R, Kim T. Application of genetic algorithm in software testing. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 2009, 3(4): 87-95

[4] Lin J C, Yeh P L. Automatic test data generation for path testing using GAs. Information Sciences, 2001, 131(1-4): 47-64

[5] Gong D W, Tian T, Yao X J. Grouping target paths for evolutionary generation of test data in parallel. The Journal of Systems and Software, 2012, 85(11): 2531-2540

[6] Miller J, Reformat M, Zhang H. Automatic test data generation using genetic algorithm and program dependence graphs. Information and Software Technology, 2006, 48(7): 586-605

[7] Gong D W, Zhang W Q, Yao X J. Evolutionary generation of test data for many paths coverage based on grouping. The Journal of Systems and Software, 2011, 84(12): 2222-2233

[8] McMinn P, Harman M, Binkley D, Tonella P. The species per path approach to searchbased test data generation. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 2006, 13-24

[9] Zhou Z Q, Huang D H, Tse T H, Yang Z Y, Huang H, Chen T Y. Metamorphic testing and its applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Future Software Technology. 2004

[10] Whittaker J A. What is software testing? and why is it so hard? IEEE Software, 2000, 17(1): 70-79

[11] Gong D W, Zhang Y. Generating test data for both path coverage and faults detection using genetic algorithms. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2013, 7(6): 822-837

[12] Mills H D, Dyer M D, Linger R C. Cleanroom software engineering. IEEE Software, 1987, 4(5): 19-25

[13] Voas J M, Morell L, Miller KW. Predicting where faults can hide from testing. IEEE Software, 1991, 8(2): 41-48

[14] Thévenod-Fosse P, Waeselynck H. Statemate: applied to statistical software testing. In: Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 1993, 99-109

[15] King J C. Symbolic execution and program testing. Communications of the ACM, 1976, 19(7): 385-394

[16] Botella B, Gotlieb A, Michel C. Symbolic execution of floating-point computations. Software Testing, Verification & Reliability, 2006, 16(2): 97-121

[17] Zhang J. Symbolic execution of program paths involving pointer structure variables. In: Proceedings of the 4th Intemational Conference on Quality Software. 2004, 87-92

[18] Khurshid S, Păsăreanu C S, Visser W. Generalized symbolic execution for model checking and testing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, 2619: 553-568

[19] Korel B. Automated software test data generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1990, 16(8): 870-879

[20] Harman M, Mansouri A, Zhang Y. Search-based Software Engineering: A Comprehensive Analysis and Review of Trends Techniques and Applications. Technical Report TR-09-03: Department of Computer Science, King’s College London. 2009

[21] Holland J H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1975

[22] Xanthakis S, Ellis C, Skourlas C, Le Gall A, Katsikas S, Karapoulios K. Application of genetic algorithms to software testing. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1992, 625-636

[23] McMinn P. Search-based software test data generation: a survey. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 2004, 14(2): 105-156

[24] Michael C C, McGraw G E, Schatz M A. Opportunism and diversity in automated software test data generation. In: Proceedings of Automated Software Engineer. 1998, 136-146

[25] Pargas R P, Harrold M J, Peck R. Test-data generation using genetic algorithms. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 1999, 9(1): 263-282

[26] Wegener J, Baresel A, Sthamer H. Evolutionary test environment for automatic structural testing. Journal of Information and Software Technology, 2001, 43(14): 841-854

[27] Michael C C, McGraw G, Schatz M A. Generating software test data by evolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2001, 27(12): 1085-1110

[28] Xiao M, Mohamed E A, Reformat M, Miller J. Empirical evaluation of optimization algorithms when used in goal-oriented automated test data generation techniques. Empirical Software Engineering, 2007, 12(2): 183-239

[29] Arcuri A, Yao X. Search based software testing of object-oriented containers. Information Sciences, 2008, 178(15): 3075-3095

[30] Buhler O, Wegener J. Evolutionary functional testing. Computers & Operations Research, 2008, 35(10): 3144-3160

[31] Sagarna R, Yao X. Handling constraints for search based software test data generation. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop. 2008, 232-240

[32] Ghiduk A S, Harrold M J. Using genetic algorithms to aid test data generation for data flow coverage. In: Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 2007, 41-48

[33] Harman M, Lakhotia K, McMinn P. A multi-objective approach to search-based test data generation. In: Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 2007, 1098-1105

[34] Yoo S, Harman M. Pareto efficient multi-objective test case selection. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 2007, 140-150

[35] Morell L J. A theory of fault-based testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1990, 16(8): 844-857

[36] Yang Z H, Gong Y Z, Xiao Q, Wang Y W. A defect model based testing system. Journal of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, 2008, 31(5): 1-4

[37] Romano D, Penta M D, Antoniol G. An approach for search based testing of null pointer exceptions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. 2011, 160-169

[38] Nanda M G, Sinha S. Accurate interprocedural nulldereference analysis for java. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. 2009, 133-143

[39] Bhattacharya N, Sakti A, Antoniol G, Guéhéneuc Y G, Pesant G. Divide-by-zero exception raising via branch coverage. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Search based Software Engineering, ICSSE’11. 2011, 204-218

[40] Godefroid P, Levin M Y, Molnar D. Active property checking. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Embedded software. 2008, 207-216

[41] Cui Z Q, Z. W L, Li X D. Target-directed concolic testing. Chinese Journal of Computers, 2011, 34(6): 953-964

[42] Fraser G, Zeller A. Mutation-driven generation of unit tests and oracles. In: Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on Software testing and analysis. 2010, 1689-1696

[43] Jia Y, Harman M. An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2011, 37(5): 649-678

[44] Zhong H, Zhang L, Mei H. An experimental study of four typical test suite reduction techniques. Information and Software Technology, 2008, 50(6): 534-546

[45] Hutchins M, Foster H, Goradia T, Ostrand T. Experiments of the effectiveness of data flow and control flow-based test adequacy criteria. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1994, 191-200

[46] Zhang Z Y, Jiang B, Chan W K, Tse T H, Wang X M. Fault localization through evaluation sequences. Journal of Systems and Software, 2010, 83(2): 174-187

[47] Gotlieb A, Petit M. Path-oriented random testing. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Random Testing. 2006, 28-35

[48] Hyunsook D, Sebastian E, Gregg R. Supporting controlled experimentation with testing techniques: an infrastructure and its potential impact. Empirical Software Engineering, 2005, 10(4): 405-435

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg