Comparison of Two Fitness Functions for GA-Based Path-Oriented Test Data Generation

Automatic path-oriented test data generation is not only a crucial problem but also a hot issue in the research area of software testing today. As a robust metaheuritstic search method in complex spaces, genetic algorithm (GA) has been used to path-oriented test data generation since 1992 and outperforms other approaches. A fitness function based on branch distance (BDBFF) and another based on normalized extended Hamming distance (SIMILARITY) are both applied in GA-based path-oriented test data generation. To compare performance of these two fitness functions, a triangle classification program was chosen as the example. Experimental results show that BDBFF-based approach can generate path-oriented test data more effectively and efficiently than SIMILARITY- based approach does.

[1]  André Baresel,et al.  Fitness Function Design To Improve Evolutionary Structural Testing , 2002, GECCO.

[2]  Glenford J. Myers,et al.  The art of software testing (2. ed.) , 2004 .

[3]  Bogdan Korel,et al.  Automated Software Test Data Generation , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[4]  Irman Hermadi,et al.  GA-based multiple paths test data generator , 2008, Comput. Oper. Res..

[5]  Joachim Wegener,et al.  Evolutionary test environment for automatic structural testing , 2001, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[6]  Amiram Yehudai,et al.  Evolutionary Testing: A Case Study , 2006, Haifa Verification Conference.

[7]  Joachim Wegener,et al.  Suitability of evolutionary algorithms for evolutionary testing , 2002, Proceedings 26th Annual International Computer Software and Applications.

[8]  Tsong Yueh Chen,et al.  Semi-proving: an integrated method based on global symbolic evaluation and metamorphic testing , 2002, ISSTA '02.

[9]  Roy P. Pargas,et al.  Test‐data generation using genetic algorithms , 1999 .

[10]  Jin-Cherng Lin,et al.  Automatic test data generation for path testing using GAs , 2001, Inf. Sci..

[11]  James C. King,et al.  A new approach to program testing , 1974, Programming Methodology.

[12]  Yves Deville,et al.  Consistency techniques for interprocedural test data generation , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[13]  James C. King.  A new approach to program testing , 1975 .

[14]  Joachim Wegener,et al.  Automatic Test Data Generation For Structural Testing Of Embedded Software Systems By Evolutionary Testing , 2002, GECCO.

[15]  Bogdan Korel,et al.  Dynamic method for software test data generation , 1992, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[16]  Brian W. Kernighan,et al.  Elements of Programming Style , 1974 .

[17]  Gary McGraw,et al.  Generating Software Test Data by Evolution , 2001, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[18]  Glenford J. Myers,et al.  Art of Software Testing , 1979 .

[19]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  The applicability of program schema results to programs , 1979, International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences.

[20]  Bogdan Korel,et al.  Automated test data generation for programs with procedures , 1996, ISSTA '96.

[21]  Darrel C. Ince,et al.  The Automatic Generation of Test Data , 1987, Comput. J..

[22]  Yoichi Hayashi,et al.  Neural expert system using fuzzy teaching input and its application to medical diagnosis , 1994 .

[23]  Yong Chen,et al.  Automatic Path-Oriented Test Data Generation Using a Multi-population Genetic Algorithm , 2008, 2008 Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation.

[24]  Antonia Bertolino,et al.  Software Testing Research: Achievements, Challenges, Dreams , 2007, Future of Software Engineering (FOSE '07).

[25]  Yong Chen,et al.  Automatic Structural Test Data Generation Using Immune Genetic Algorithm , 2008 .

[26]  Donald J. Berndt,et al.  Breeding software test cases with genetic algorithms , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.