Characterization of Open-Source Applications and Test Suites

Software systems that meet the stakeholders needs and expectations is the ultimate objective of the software provider. Software testing is a critical phase in the software development lifecycle that is used to evaluate the software. Tests can be written by the testers or the automatic test generators in many different ways and with different goals. Yet, there is a lack of well-defined guidelines or a methodology to direct the testers to

[1]  James A. Whittaker,et al.  What is software testing? And why is it so hard? , 2000 .

[2]  Atul Gupta,et al.  An approach for experimentally evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of coverage criteria for software testing , 2008, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[3]  Akbar Siami Namin,et al.  The influence of size and coverage on test suite effectiveness , 2009, ISSTA.

[4]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Understanding "why" in software process modelling, analysis, and design , 1994, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[5]  Boris Beizer,et al.  Software System Testing and Quality Assurance , 1984 .

[6]  Kristen R. Walcott,et al.  Quality Metrics of Test Suites in Testdriven Designed Applications , 2018 .

[7]  Bo Qu,et al.  Test Case Prioritization Based on Varying Testing Requirement Priorities and Test Case Costs , 2007, Seventh International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC 2007).

[8]  Muhammad Talha Riaz,et al.  Software Testing Practices in IT Industry of Pakistan , 2019, ECBS.

[9]  Sira Vegas,et al.  A Characterisation Schema for Software Testing Techniques , 2005, Empirical Software Engineering.

[10]  Richard S. Hall,et al.  A Characterization Framework for Software Deployment Technologies , 1998 .

[11]  Reid Holmes,et al.  Coverage is not strongly correlated with test suite effectiveness , 2014, ICSE.

[12]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Software Testing and Industry Needs , 2006, IEEE Softw..

[13]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Using Mutation Analysis for Assessing and Comparing Testing Coverage Criteria , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[14]  Peter Dalgaard,et al.  R Development Core Team (2010): R: A language and environment for statistical computing , 2010 .

[15]  Alex Groce,et al.  Code coverage for suite evaluation by developers , 2014, ICSE.

[16]  Alex Groce,et al.  Comparing non-adequate test suites using coverage criteria , 2013, ISSTA.

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

[18]  Brian Marick.  How to Misuse Code Coverage , 1999 .

[19]  Marco Tulio Valente,et al.  How Annotations are Used in Java: An Empirical Study , 2011, SEKE.

[20]  Alexander L. Wolf,et al.  Acm Sigsoft Software Engineering Notes Vol 17 No 4 Foundations for the Study of Software Architecture , 2022 .

[21]  Qian Yang,et al.  A survey of coverage based testing tools , 2006, AST '06.

[22]  Brent Hailpern,et al.  Software debugging, testing, and verification , 2002, IBM Syst. J..

[23]  Xiaoyin Wang,et al.  An Empirical Study on the Usage of Mocking Frameworks in Software Testing , 2014, 2014 14th International Conference on Quality Software.

[24]  Nasir Uddin,et al.  Investigating the Correlation between Mutation Score and Coverage Score , 2013, 2013 UKSim 15th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation.

[25]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  Empirical studies of test‐suite reduction , 2002, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[26]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Test coverage and post-verification defects: A multiple case study , 2009, ESEM 2009.

[27]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework , 1988, IEEE Software.

[28]  Michael D. Ernst,et al.  Are mutants a valid substitute for real faults in software testing? , 2014, SIGSOFT FSE.

[29]  Kristen Walcott-Justice,et al.  Empirically Evaluating the Quality of Automatically Generated and Manually Written Test Suites , 2014, 2014 14th International Conference on Quality Software.