Exploring pseudo-testedness: Empirically evaluating extreme mutation testing at the statement level

Interested in learning more about this topic? Visit this web site to read the paper: https://www.gregorykapfhammer.com/research/papers/maton2024/

1. Exploring Pseudo-Testedness Empirically Evaluating Extreme Mutation Testing at the Statement Level Megan Maton*, Gregory M. Kapfhammer, Phil McMinn * Lead author and paper presenter
2. Extreme Mutation Testing (XMT) Production Code Test Suite 2 ⟳ ✅ This method is pseudo-tested.
3. Extreme Mutation Testing (XMT) Production Code Test Suite 3 ⟳ This method is “required” for the test suite to pass. ❌
4. Does pseudo-testedness exist within these required methods? 4
5. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 5 Required Method Test Suite
6. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 6 Test Suite ⟳ Required Method
7. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 7 Test Suite ⟳ Required Method
8. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 8 Test Suite ⟳ Required Method
9. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 9 Test Suite ⟳ Required Method
10. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 10 Test Suite ⟳ Required Method
11. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 11 Test Suite ✅ Required Method
12. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 12 Test Suite ⟳ Required Method
13. Identifying pseudo-tested statements 13 Test Suite ⟳ ✅ Despite the method being “required”, it contains a pseudo-tested statement… Required Method
14. Research Questions 14
15. RQ1: How frequent are pseudo-tested elements? RQ2: Do pseudo-tested elements have low mutation scores? RQ3: Does PITʼs default set of operators effectively highlight deficient testing with respect to pseudo-tested statements? RQ4: What are the causes of pseudo-tested statements? 15
16. PseudoSweep: A Pseudo-Tested Code Identifier 16 16:00 Tool Demo in Fremont https://github.com/PseudoTested/PseudoSweep
17. RQ1: How frequent are pseudo-tested elements? 17 7 projects contained no pseudo-tested methods 6.1% of all methods were pseudo-tested 21% of covered (required + pseudo-tested) methods were actually pseudo-tested
18. RQ1: How frequent are pseudo-tested elements? 18 1.08% of statements pseudo-tested 4% of covered statements were pseudo-tested Pseudo-tested statements in required methods made up 48% of pseudo-tested statements
19. 19 Mutation Testing seeds synthetic faults into code to evaluate a test suites fault detection ability. a > b mutates to a < b If your test suite can detect the synthetic faults, it will likely detect real faults. RQ2 and 3: Background
20. RQ2: Do pseudo-tested elements have low mutation scores? 20 Overall method mutation scores ◾ 0.82 (Required) ╳ 0.40 (Pseudo-tested)
21. RQ2: Do pseudo-tested elements have low mutation scores? 21 Overall statement mutation scores ◾ 0.80 (Required) ╳ 0.57 (PiR) PiR - Pseudo-tested statements within required methods
22. 22 RQ3: Does PITʼs default set of operators effectively highlight deficient testing with respect to pseudo-tested statements? https://pitest.org/ State-of-the-art Mutation Testing Tool for Java projects
23. 23 https://pitest.org/quickstart/mutators/ Default Operator Set RQ3: Does PITʼs default set of operators effectively highlight deficient testing with respect to pseudo-tested statements?
24. 24 Elements Mutants per Element Required Methods 6.97 Pseudo-tested Methods 3.67 Required Statements 2.31 PiR Statements 0.92 PiR - Pseudo-tested statements within required methods Testing deficiencies in pseudo-tested statements may have a lower chance of being identified using PITʼs default operator set alone. RQ3: Does PITʼs default set of operators effectively highlight deficient testing with respect to pseudo-tested statements? PIT places more mutants in required methods than pseudo-tested methods PIT places less than one mutant per PiR statement
25. RQ4: What are the causes of pseudo-tested statements? ⊚ No targeting assertion (70) ◖ Partial assertion (7) ⍉ No targeting test (9) ⃕ Unintended exception handling (6) 25
26. RQ4: ⊚ No targeting assertion (70) Solution: add an assertion to check expected content is between the tags 26 Production Code Test Suite ✅
27. RQ4: ◖ Partial assertion (7) 27 Multiple statements appending to the string Test only checks the final string contains “foo” and “bar”. And due to both shortOpts and longOpts containing “foo” and “bar”... Line 5 and 7 are pseudo-tested due to partial assertion.
28. RQ4: ⍉ No targeting test (9) 28 There is a test checking the exception is thrown But no test to execute the IF Statement to True Making the IF statement pseudo-tested
29. RQ4: ⃕ Unintended exception handling (6) 29 Checks if input string is a valid input And throws an exception if it is not valid
30. Replication Package https://github.com/PseudoTested/icsme-2024-replication-package 30