Skip to main content

Combining Multiple Coverage Criteria in Search-Based Unit Test Generation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Search-Based Software Engineering (SSBSE 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9275))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Automated test generation techniques typically aim at maximising coverage of well-established structural criteria such as statement or branch coverage. In practice, generating tests only for one specific criterion may not be sufficient when testing object oriented classes, as standard structural coverage criteria do not fully capture the properties developers may desire of their unit test suites. For example, covering a large number of statements could be easily achieved by just calling the main method of a class; yet, a good unit test suite would consist of smaller unit tests invoking individual methods, and checking return values and states with test assertions. There are several different properties that test suites should exhibit, and a search-based test generator could easily be extended with additional fitness functions to capture these properties.

However, does search-based testing scale to combinations of multiple criteria, and what is the effect on the size and coverage of the resulting test suites? To answer these questions, we extended the EvoSuite unit test generation tool to support combinations of multiple test criteria, defined and implemented several different criteria, and applied combinations of criteria to a sample of 650 open source Java classes. Our experiments suggest that optimising for several criteria at the same time is feasible without increasing computational costs: When combining nine different criteria, we observed an average decrease of only 0.4 % for the constituent coverage criteria, while the test suites may grow up to 70 %.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alshahwan, N., Harman, M.: Coverage and fault detection of the output-uniqueness test selection criteria. In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2014, pp. 181–192. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arcuri, A.: It really does matter how you normalize the branch distance in search-based software testing. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 23(2), 119–147 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arcuri, A., Briand, L.: A Hitchhiker’s guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineering. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 24(3), 219–250 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: EvoSuite: automatic test suite generation for object-oriented software. In: Proceedings of FSE 2011, pp. 416–419. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: Whole test suite generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(2), 276–291 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: A large scale evaluation of automated unit test generation using evosuite. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24(2), 8:1–8:42 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: Achieving scalable mutation-based generation of whole test suites. Empirical Softw. Eng. 20(3), 1–30 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fraser, G., Staats, M., McMinn, P., Arcuri, A., Padberg, F.: Does automated white-box test generation really help software testers? In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2013, pp. 291–301. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harman, M., Lakhotia, K., McMinn, P.: A multi-objective approach to search-based test data generation. In: Proceedings of GECCO 2007, pp. 1098–1105. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jamrozik, K., Fraser, G., Tillman, N., de Halleux, J.: Generating test suites with augmented dynamic symbolic execution. In: Veanes, M., Viganò, L. (eds.) TAP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7942, pp. 152–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Jeffrey, D., Gupta, N.: Improving fault detection capability by selectively retaining test cases during test suite reduction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(2), 108–123 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Korel, B.: Automated software test data generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(8), 870–879 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li, N., Meng, X., Offutt, J., Deng, L.: Is bytecode instrumentation as good as source code instrumentation: an empirical study with industrial tools (experience report). In: Proceedings of ISSRE 2013, pp. 380–389. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. McMinn, P.: Search-based software test data generation: a survey. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 14(2), 105–156 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sampath, S., Bryce, R., Memon, A.: A uniform representation of hybrid criteria for regression testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(10), 1326–1344 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yoo, S., Harman, M.: Pareto efficient multi-objective test case selection. In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2007, pp. 140–150. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yoo, S., Harman, M.: Using hybrid algorithm for pareto efficient multi-objective test suite minimisation. J. Syst. Softw. 83(4), 689–701 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu, H., Hall, P.A.V., May, J.H.R.: Software unit test coverage and adequacy. ACM Comput. Surv. 29(4), 366–427 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (FNR/P10/03) and the EPSRC project “EXOGEN” (EP/K030353/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Campos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rojas, J.M., Campos, J., Vivanti, M., Fraser, G., Arcuri, A. (2015). Combining Multiple Coverage Criteria in Search-Based Unit Test Generation. In: Barros, M., Labiche, Y. (eds) Search-Based Software Engineering. SSBSE 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9275. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22183-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22183-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22182-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22183-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics