1 / 19

Improving Test Suites for Efficient Fault Localization

Improving Test Suites for Efficient Fault Localization . By: Benoit Baudry , Franck Fleurey , Yves Le Traon , 2006. Laleh Sh. Ghandehari. Feb. 28, 2011. Outline. Definition Diagnosis fault algorithm Test criterion for diagnosis Automatically optimize test suit

jessie
Télécharger la présentation

Improving Test Suites for Efficient Fault Localization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving Test Suites for Efficient Fault Localization By: Benoit Baudry, Franck Fleurey, Yves Le Traon, 2006 • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari • Feb. 28, 2011

  2. Outline • Definition • Diagnosis fault algorithm • Test criterion for diagnosis • Automatically optimize test suit • Experimental validation • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  3. Definition • Test : the goal is generating test data with high fault-revealing power. • Locating/Diagnosis fault : uses all available information coming from testing to locate fault. • The more information coming from testing, the more precise the diagnosis would be. • test-for-diagnosis criterion (TfD) : evaluate the “fault locating power” of test cases. The capacity of test cases to help the fault localization task. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  4. Diagnosis fault algorithm • Diagnosis accuracy • The number of statements have been to examine before finding a fault. • Tarantula approach • Faulty statements more frequently appear in the traces of the failed test cases than in the passed test cases. • Using diagnosis matrix • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  5. Diagnosis matrix Diagnosis matrix Diagnosis results • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  6. Trust value • For s statement: • Trust(s) the ratio between the percentage of passed test cases that execute s and the total percentage of test cases that execute s. • Trust(s) = %Passed(s) / (%Passed(s) + %Failed(s)) • Intensity(s) = Max(%Passed(s),%Failed(s)) – the higher this value is the most accurate the trust should be. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  7. Test suite’s criterion • Code coverage, base criteria. • Test suite criterion for diagnosis: • N-coverage: having at least N test cases that cover each statement of the program. • Distinguishing statements: minimize the number of indistinguishable statements in the diagnosis matrix. • Indistinguishable statements: has same value for trust and intensity. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  8. Dynamic Basic Block • The set of statements of P that is covered by the same test cases of TS. • OR • The set of statements that have identical lines in the diagnosis matrix. • B(TS): the set of dynamic basic blocks in P, distinguished by TS. • { (1,2), (3,7), (4), (5,6) } • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  9. Test for diagnosis criterion • Ideal accuracy of diagnosis • Minimize the size of DBBs.(not decidable) • Maximize the number of DBBs, the max possible number is the number of static basic blocks. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  10. Test for diagnosis criterion • A test suite satisfies the TfD criterion if it maximizes the number of dynamic basic blocks distinguished in the program under test. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  11. Automatic test optimization • Bacteriologic approach • Mutation operator: Let T=[C1,..,Cn] be a test case composed of n values. Let Cibe a randomly selected value in T. The mutation operator consists in replacing Ciby a randomly generated valid value C’i: • T= [C1,.., Ci,..Cn]-> T=[ C1,.., C’i,..Cn] • Fitness function: computes the quality of a test case for a particular criterion. Let S be a test suite, the fitness value of a test case t is f(t) = f(S U {t}) – f(S) • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  12. Automatic test optimization • Initial test suite as an input • Compute the fitness value for each test case. • Loop • Mutation operator generate new test cases. • Compute the fitness value for the test case, it added to the solution if it can improve the quality of the set. • Stopping criteria: A given fitness value reached, number of generation • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  13. Automatic test optimization • Fitness function for test suite S: • Statement coverage : F(S) = |C(S)|/|P| • TfD : F(S) = |B(S)| • N-coverage criterion: produce N test suites that each cover all the statements and merge them – because the algorithm is random. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  14. Experimental validation • The initial test suite is optimized • Faulty version (Mutant) are generated for the program under test • For each mutant • Test cases are executed, verdicts and execution traces • Diagnosis matrix is build • Diagnosis algorithm is executed • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  15. Experimental validation • System under test • 72 classes • 1478 lines • Test suit has 15 test cases • The test suite distinguishes 113 DBBs. • 346 faulty programs • Run optimization algorithm with the coverage fitness function, 4 times and merge the results. • Run optimization algorithm with the TfD fitness function, after around 150 iteration the final test suite has 186 DBBs. • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  16. Results • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  17. Scalability • The optimization test is really time consuming: • Using diagnosis algorithm • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  18. Questions? • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

  19. Thank you • Laleh Sh. Ghandehari

More Related