Proteum/IM 2.0: An Integrated Mutation Testing Environment

  • Márcio Eduardo Delamaro
  • José Carlos Maldonado
  • Auri Marcelo Rizzo Vincenzi
Chapter
Part of the The Springer International Series on Advances in Database Systems book series (ADBS, volume 24)

Abstract

Mutation testing has been used mostly at the unit level. To support its application few tools have been developed and used, mainly in the academic environment. Interface Mutation has been proposed aiming at applying mutation at the integration level. A tool named Proteum/IM was implemented to support such criterion. With the definition of the Interface Mutation criterion the tester has the possibility of applying mutation testing concepts throughout the software development. It seems mandatory to have a single, integrated environment that would support mutation-based unit and integration testing. Such environment, which provides facilities to investigate low-cost and incremental testing strategies, is the focus of this paper.

Keywords

Software Testing Mutation testing Interface Mutation Testing Tool Proteum/IM 2.0. 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. T. Acree, T. A. Budd, R. A. DeMillo, R. J. Lipton, and F. G. Sayward. Mutation analysis. Technical Report GITICS-79/08, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 1979.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Agrawal, R. A. DeMillo, R. Hataway, W. Hsu, W. Hsu, E. Krauser, R. J. Martin, A. P. Mathur, and E. H. Spafford. Design of Mutant Operators for C Programming Language. Tech Report SERC-TR41-P, Software Engineering Research Center, Purdue University, March 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E. F. Barbosa, J. C. Maldonado, and A. M. R. Vincenzi. Towards the determination of sufficient mutant operators for C. In First International Workshop on Automated Program Analysis, Testing and Verification,Limerick, Ireland, June 2000. (Accepted for publication in a special issue of the Software Testing Verification and Reliability Journal).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Carnassale. GFC — a multilanguage tool for program graph generation. Master’s thesis, DCA/FEE/UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Feb. 1991. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. L. Chaim. Poke-tool - a tool to suport data flow based structural test of programs. Master’s thesis, DCA/FEEC/UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Apr. 1991. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S.-S. Chen. Design of a mutation testing tool for C. Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, Apr. 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. E. Delamaro. Interface Mutation: An Interprocedural Adequace Criterion for Integration Testing. PhD thesis, Instituto de Fisica de São Carlos - Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Carlos, SP, June 1997. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. E. Delamaro and J. C. Maldonado. Proteum–a tool for the assesment of test adequacy for C programs. In Conference on Performability in Computing Systems (PCS’96), pages 79–95, Brunswick, NJ, July 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. E. Delamaro, J. C. Maldonado, and A. P. Mathur. Integration testing using interface mutation. In VII International Symposium of Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’96), pages 112–121, White Plains, NY, Nov. 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. E. Delamaro, J. C. Maldonado, and A. P. Mathur. Interface mutation: An approach for integration testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, (accepted for publication), 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Haley and S. Zweben. Development and Application of a White Box Approach to Integration Testing. The Journal of Systems and Software, 4: 309–315, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. J. Harrold and M. L. Soffa. Selecting and Using Data for Integration Test. IEEE Software, 8 (2): 58–65, March 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. R. Horgan and P. Mathur. Assessing Testing Tools in Research and Education. IEEE Software, 9 (3): 61–69, May 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Z. Jin and A. J. Offut. Integration Testing Based on Software Couplings. In Proceedings of the X Annual Conference on Computer Assurance (COMPASS 95), pages 13–23, Gaithersburg, Maryland, January 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. Kim. Design of a mutation testing tool for C. Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, Apr. 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    K. N. King and A. J. Offutt. A Fortran language system for mutation based software testing. Software-Practice and Experience, 21 (7): 685–718, July 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    U. Linnenkugel and M. Müllerburg. Test Data Selection Criteria for (Software) Integration Testing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systems Integration, pages 709–717, Momstown, NJ, April 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. C. Maldonado, E. E Barbosa, A. M. R. Vincenzi, and M. E. Delamaro. Evaluation N-selective mutation for C programs: Unit and integration testing. In Mutation 2000 Symposium, pages 32–44, San Jose, CA, Oct. 2000.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. P. Mathur. Performance, effectiveness and reliability issues in software testing. In 15th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, pages 604605, Tokio, Japan, Sept. 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. P. Mathur. Cs 406 software engineering. Course Handout, Purdue University, Fall 1992.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    E. Mresa and L. Bottaci. Efficiency of mutation operators and selective mutation strategies: an empirical study. The Journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 9 (4): 205–232, Dec. 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. J. Offutt, A. Lee, G. Rothermel, R. H. Untch, and C. Zapf. An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 5 (2): 99–118, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. J. Offutt, G. Rothermel, and C. Zapf. An experimental evaluation of selective mutation. In 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 100–107, Baltimore, MD, May 1993.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Untch, M. J. Harrold, and J. Offutt. Mutation analysis using mutant schemata. In International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pages 139–148, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 1993.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. M. R. Vincenzi, J. C. Maldonado, E. F. Barbosa, and M. E. Delamaro. Unit and integration testing strategies for C programs using mutation-based criteria. In Symposium on Mutation Testing, pages 56–67, San Jose, CA, Oct. 2000.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    W. E. Wong, J. C. Maldonado, M. E. Delamaro, and A. P. Mathur. Constrained Mutation in C Programs. In Proceedings of the 8th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pages 439–452, Curitiba, PR, Brazil, October 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Márcio Eduardo Delamaro
    • 1
  • José Carlos Maldonado
    • 2
  • Auri Marcelo Rizzo Vincenzi
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade Estadual de MaringáBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto de Ciências Matemáticas e de ComputaçãoUniversidade de São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations