A Plug-in Test Case Generation Method based on Contact Layer Proximity and Node Probability Coverage

doi:10.23940/ijpe.17.08.p10.12811292

Abstract

Abstract: Genetic Algorithm (GA for short), which simulates the process of natural evolution to search and achieve the optimal solution, is often employed to generate test cases. Therefore, a GA-based test case generation policy, which introduces the concept of node probability coverage as the detection method for nodes in unreachable paths, is proposed in this work. Moreover, in the application under test, complex decisions and nested structures often lead to different execution difficulty of each statement. Therefore, a path coverage method based on contact layer proximity is presented, which quantifies the difficulty difference of different statements using contact vector. Besides, contact layer proximity and node probability coverage are combined to design the fitness function in GA. Then, the experiments about two classical benchmark cases, namely triangle-classifying program and bubble sort program, are conducted. The result is compared and analyzed with a similar method, namely the method of node probability coverage. It is shown that the proposed test case generation method is more efficient. Finally, a plug-in using the proposed test case generation method is developed.

Key words: path coverage, contact layer proximity, node probability coverage, contact vector, test case, plug-in

Qian Zhongsheng, Hong Dafei, and Wang Xiaojin. A Plug-in Test Case Generation Method based on Contact Layer Proximity and Node Probability Coverage [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2017, 13(8): 1281-1292.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

Figures/Tables 7

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

The unreachable paths in triangle-classifying program"

Path list
R₁=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, d13 , $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$,ed>
R₂=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₃=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₄=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₅=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₆=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₇=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₈=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₉=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{14}$, ed>
R₁₀=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₁₁=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₁₂=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₁₃=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₁₄=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₁₅=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₁₆=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₁₇=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₁₈=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, ed}>
R₁₉=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₂₀=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
R₂₁=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
R₂₂=<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 3

References 15

1	B. Bako , A. Borchert , N. Heidenbluth , J. Mayer , “Plugin-Based Systems with Self-Organized Hierarchical Presentation,” in International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice, pp. 577-584, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, June 2006
2	D. Beyer , T. A. Henzinger , R. Jhala , R. Majumdar , “An Eclipse Plug-in for Model Checking,” in IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 251-255, Bari, Italy, June 2004
3	W. U . Chuan and D. W. Gong, “Evolutionary Generation of Test Data for Regression Testing Based on Path Correlation,” Chinese Journal of Computers, vol. 38, no.11, pp. 2247-2261, November 2015 (in Chinese with English abstract)
4	D. W . Gong and L. N. Ren, “Evolutionary Generation of Regression Test Data,” Chinese Journal of Computers, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 489-499, March 2014 (in Chinese with English abstract)
5	M Greiler , A. V. Deursen . “What Your Plug-in Test Suites Really Test: an Integration Perspective on Test Suite Understanding,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 859-900, October 2013
6	M. Greiler , A. V. Deursen , M. A. Storey , “Test confessions: A Study of Testing Practices for Plug-in Systems,” in IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 244-254, Zurich, Switzerland, June 2012
7	M. Greiler , H. G. Gross , Van Deursen A, “Understanding Plug-in Test Suites From an Extensibility Perspective,” in The 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 67-76, Beverly, MA, USA, October 2010
8	M. Jahn , R. Wolfinger , H. Mössenböck , “Extending Web Applications with Client and Server Plug-ins,” in International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 33-44, Paderborn, February 2010
9	S. J. Jiang , L. S. Wang , M. Xue , Y. M. Zhang , Q. Yu , H. R. Yao , “Test Case Generation Based on Combination of Schema Using Particle Swarm Optimization,” Journal of Software, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 785-801, April 2016 (in Chinese with English abstract)
10	H. V. Nguyen , C. Kästner , T. N. Nguyen , “Exploring Variability-aware Execution for Testing Plugin-based Web Applications,” in ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 907-918, Orlando, Florida, USA, May 2014
11	C. Wu , D. W. Gong , X. J. Yao , “Selection of Paths for Regression Testing Based on Branch Coverage,” Journal of Software, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 839-854, April 2016 (in Chinese with English abstract)
12	C. Y. Xia , Y. Zhang , L. Song , “Evolutionary Generation of Test Data for Paths Coverage Based on Node Probability,” Journal of Software, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 802-813, April 2016 (in Chinese with English abstract)
13	X. J. Yao , “Theory of Evolutionary Generation of Test Data for Complex Software and Applications,” China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China, April 2011 (in Chinese with English abstract)
14	X. J. Yao , D. W. Gong , B. Li , “Evolutional Test Data Generation for Path Coverage by Integrating Neural Network,” Journal of Software, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 828-838, April 2016 (in Chinese with English abstract)
15	G. J. Zhang , D. W. Gong , X. J. Yao , “Test Case Generation Based on Mutation Analysis and Set Evolution,” Chinese Journal of Computers, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2318-2331, November 2015 (in Chinese with English abstract)

ID	Traversed degree	Fit(x)	Target fitness	Target path
1	3.5455	4.8498	4.8498	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$,ed>
2	4.9545	6.7772	6.7772	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{14}$, ed>
3	3.4091	4.6632	4.6632	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
4	1.2727	1.7409	1.7409	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{14}$, ed>
5	5.0455	6.9016	6.9016	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
6	2.8636	3.9171	3.9171	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
7	7.7727	10.6321	10.6321	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, ed>
8	4.6364	6.3420	6.3420	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
9	6.2727	8.5803	8.5803	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$, $d_{4}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{10}$, $d_{11}$, $d_{12}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>
10	5.4545	7.4611	7.4611	<st, $d_{1}$, $d_{5}$, $d_{6}$, $d_{7}$, $d_{8}$, $d_{9}$, $d_{13}$, $d_{15}$, $d_{16}$, $d_{18}$, $d_{19}$, ed>


	50	100	150	200
[12]	0.00660s	0.00467s	0.00480s	0.00620s
The proposed method	0.00427s	0.00440s	0.00420s	0.00610s
Time difference	0.00233s	0.00027s	0.00060s	0.00010s

			Population size
	40	80	120	160	200
[12]	0.0049s	0.0048s	0.00633s	0.00760s	0.00820s
The proposed method	0.0042s	0.0047s	0.00606s	0.00747s	0.00813s
Time difference	0.0007s	0.0001s	0.00027s	0.00013s	0.00007s

[1]	Chia-En Lai and Chin-Yu Huang. Developing a Modified Fuzzy-GE Algorithm for Enhanced Test Suite Reduction Effectiveness [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2023, 19(4): 223-233.
[2]	Jenson Jose, and Jose P Therattil. Machine Learning Assisted Parameter Tuning for a L2CL-LCL Compensation WPT System [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2021, 17(12): 1005-1015.
[3]	Tingting Huo, Yan Zhang, Chunyan Xia, Zijiang Yang, Weisong Sun. Large-Scale Test Case Prioritization using Viterbi Algorithm [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(12): 1921-1932.
[4]	Qiang Chen, Zhanwei Hui, and Jialuo Liu. Test Set Augmentation Technique for Deep Learning Image Classifiers [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(7): 1998-2007.
[5]	Yan Zhang, Li Qiao, Xingya Wang, Jingying Cai, and Xuefei Liu. Automatic Software Testing Target Path Selection using K-Means Clustering Algorithm [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(10): 2667-2674.