The class-level mutants of MuJava

This paper presents results from empirical studies of object-oriented, class level mutation operators, using the automated analysis and testing tool MuJava. Class mutation operators modify OO programming language features such as inheritance, polymorphism, dynamic binding and encapsulation. This paper presents data from 866 classes in six open-source programs. Several new class-level mutation operators are defined in this paper and an analysis of the number of mutants generated is provided. Techniques for eliminating some equivalent mutants are described and data from an automated tool are provided. One important result is that class-level mutation operators yield far more equivalent mutants than traditional, statement-level, operators. Another is that there are far fewer class-level mutants than statement-level mutants. Together, these data suggest that mutation for inter-class testing can be practically affordable.

[1]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Hints on Test Data Selection: Help for the Practicing Programmer , 1978, Computer.

[2]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Detecting equivalent mutants and the feasible path problem , 1996, Proceedings of 11th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance. COMPASS '96.

[3]  ROBERT V. BINDER,et al.  Testing object‐oriented software: a survey , 1996, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

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

[5]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators , 1996, TSEM.

[6]  Douglas Baldwin,et al.  Heuristics for Determining Equivalence of Program Mutations. , 1979 .

[7]  John A. Clark,et al.  Class Mutation : Mutation Testing for Object-Oriented Programs , 2000 .

[8]  Philippe Chevalley,et al.  Applying mutation analysis for object-oriented programs using a reflective approach , 2001, Proceedings Eighth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[9]  MaYu-Seung,et al.  MuJava: an automated class mutation system , 2005 .

[10]  S. N. Weiss,et al.  All-Uses versus Mutation Testing : An ExperimentalComparison of E ectiveness , 1996 .

[11]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  A fault model for subtype inheritance and polymorphism , 2001, Proceedings 12th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering.

[12]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Inter-class mutation operators for Java , 2002, 13th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, 2002. Proceedings..

[13]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Integration testing of object‐oriented components using finite state machines , 2006, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[14]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Constraint-Based Automatic Test Data Generation , 1991, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[15]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Data Flow and Mutation Testing , 1996 .

[16]  Pascale Thévenod-Fosse,et al.  A mutation analysis tool for Java programs , 2003, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[17]  Dana Angluin,et al.  Two notions of correctness and their relation to testing , 1982, Acta Informatica.

[18]  J.H. Andrews,et al.  Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? [software testing] , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

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

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

[21]  Phyllis G. Frankl,et al.  All-uses vs mutation testing: An experimental comparison of effectiveness , 1997, J. Syst. Softw..

[22]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  The Dynamic Domain Reduction Procedure for Test Data Generation: Design and Algorithms , 1994 .

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