Using Constraints for Equivalent Mutant Detection

In mutation testing the question whether a mutant is equivalent to its program is important in order to compute the correct mutation score. Unfortunately, answering this question is not always possible and can hardly be obtained just by having a look at the program's structure. In this paper we introduce a method for solving the equivalent mutant problem using a constraint representation of the program and its mutant. In particularly the approach is based on distinguishing test cases, i.e., test inputs that force the program and its mutant to behave in a different way. Beside the foundations of the approach, in this paper we also present the algorithms and first empirical results.

[1]  Jie Pan,et al.  Using Constraints to Detect Equivalent Mutants , 1994 .

[2]  Mark Harman,et al.  Using program slicing to assist in the detection of equivalent mutants , 1999, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[3]  Andreas Zeller,et al.  (Un-)Covering Equivalent Mutants , 2010, 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation.

[4]  Arnaud Gotlieb,et al.  Improving Constraint-Based Testing with Dynamic Linear Relaxations , 2007, The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability (ISSRE '07).

[5]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An empirical study of regression test selection techniques , 2001, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol..

[6]  Meine van der Meulen,et al.  Correlations between Internal Software Metrics and Software Dependability in a Large Population of Small C/C++ Programs , 2007, The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability (ISSRE '07).

[7]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  MuJava: an automated class mutation system , 2005, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[8]  Mark Harman,et al.  Using program slicing to assist in the detection of equivalent mutants , 1999, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[9]  Mark Harman,et al.  An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[10]  Arnaud Gotlieb.  Euclide: A Constraint-Based Testing Framework for Critical C Programs , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation.

[11]  Pascal Van Hentenryck,et al.  CPBPV: a constraint-programming framework for bounded program verification , 2009, Constraints.

[12]  Franz Wotawa,et al.  Does Testing Help to Reduce the Number of Potentially Faulty Statements in Debugging? , 2010, TAIC PART.

[13]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Using compiler optimization techniques to detect equivalent mutants , 1994, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[14]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  Empirical Studies of a Safe Regression Test Selection Technique , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[15]  Ian P. Gent,et al.  Minion: A Fast Scalable Constraint Solver , 2006, ECAI.

[16]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? , 2005, ICSE.

[17]  Hanspeter Mössenböck,et al.  Single-pass generation of static single-assignment form for structured languages , 1994, TOPL.

[18]  Arnaud Gotlieb,et al.  Automatic test data generation using constraint solving techniques , 1998, ISSTA '98.