WebMate: Generating Test Cases for Web 2.0

  • Valentin Dallmeier
  • Martin Burger
  • Tobias Orth
  • Andreas Zeller
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 133)


Web applications are everywhere—well tested web applications however are in short supply. The mixture of JavaScript, HTML and CSS in a variety of different browsers makes it virtually impossible to apply static analysis techniques. In this setting, systematic testing becomes a real challenge. We present a technique to automatically generate tests for Web 2.0 applications. Our approach systematically explores and tests all distinct functions of a web application. Our prototype implementation WEBMATE handles interfaces as complex as Facebook and is able to cover up to 7 times as much code as existing tools. The only requirements to use WEBMATE are the address of the application and, if necessary, user name and password.


test case generation automate testing Web 2.0 web applications 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Artzi, S., et al.: A framework for automated testing of javascript web applications. In: ICSE, pp. 571–580 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnett, M., et al.: The Spec# programming system: Challenges and directions, pp. 144–152 (2008), doi:
  3. 3.
    Benedikt, M., Freire, J., Godefroid, P.: Veriweb: Automatically testing dynamic web sites. In: Proceedings of 11th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choudhary, S.R., Versee, H., Orso, A.: WEBDIFF: Automated identification of cross-browser issues in web applications. In: ICSM, pp. 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciupa, I., et al.: Experimental assessment of random testing for object-oriented software. In: ISSTA 2007: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 84–94. ACM Press, London (2007), doi:, ISBN: 978-1-59593-734-6
  6. 6.
    Google Code. Selenium,
  7. 7.
    Dallmeier, V., et al.: Webmate: A tool for testing web 2.0 applications. In: JsTools (To appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraser, G., Zeller, A.: Generating parameterized unit tests. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2011, pp. 364–374. ACM Press, Toronto (2011),, doi:10.1145/2001420.2001464, ISBN: 978-1-4503-0562-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gross, F., Fraser, G., Zeller, A.: Search-Based System Testing: High Coverage, No False Alarms. In: ISSTA (To appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976), doi:, ISSN: 0001-0782
  11. 11.
    Majumdar, R., Sen, K.: Hybrid Concolic Testing. In: ICSE 2007: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 416–426. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007), doi:, ISBN: 0-7695-2828-7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mesbah, A., van Deursen, A.: Invariant-based automatic testing of AJAX user interfaces. In: ICSE 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 210–220. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009), doi:, ISBN: 978-1-4244-3453-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    NetMarketShare: Desktop browser version market shareGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sourceforge. Cobertura,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentin Dallmeier
    • 1
  • Martin Burger
    • 1
  • Tobias Orth
    • 1
  • Andreas Zeller
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations