Software Testing, Verification and Reliability

Cover image for Vol. 25 Issue 5-7

Special Issue: Mutation Testing

August-November 2015

Volume 25, Issue 5-7

Pages i–ii, 461–711

Issue edited by: Yue Jia, Mercedes Merayo, Mark Harman

  1. Issue Information

    1. Top of page
    2. Issue Information
    3. Editorial
    4. Special Issue Papers
    1. Issue Information (pages i–ii)

      Article first published online: 14 AUG 2015 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1581

  2. Editorial

    1. Top of page
    2. Issue Information
    3. Editorial
    4. Special Issue Papers
    1. You have free access to this content
  3. Special Issue Papers

    1. Top of page
    2. Issue Information
    3. Editorial
    4. Special Issue Papers
    1. Reducing mutation costs through uncovered mutants (pages 464–489)

      Pedro Reales Mateo and Macario Polo Usaola

      Article first published online: 15 MAY 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1534

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      Mutant Schema Improved with extra Code (MUSIC) annotates the statements covered by test cases in the original program. Later, when mutants are executed, the execution engine avoids going through uncoverable mutants. Our empirical results prove that music is an efficient cost reduction technique. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    2. Higher accuracy and lower run time: efficient mutation analysis using non-redundant mutation operators (pages 490–507)

      René Just and Franz Schweiggert

      Article first published online: 11 DEC 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1561

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      This paper studies redundancies in commonly used mutation operators and provides non-redundant versions of the conditional operator replacement, unary operator insertion, and relational operator replacement mutation operators. The empirical study in this paper shows how the inclusion redundant mutants affect the efficiency and accuracy of mutation analysis. In summary, the total mutation analysis run time decreased by more than 20% by removing redundant mutants, and the inclusion of redundant mutants led to an overestimated mutation score for all analyzed test suites.

    3. Employing second-order mutation for isolating first-order equivalent mutants (pages 508–535)

      Marinos Kintis, Mike Papadakis and Nicos Malevris

      Article first published online: 21 APR 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1529

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      This paper presents a new technique to tackle the equivalent mutant problem. The salient feature of this approach is the employment of higher-order mutation in the classification process. More precisely, the classification scheme utilises code coverage information and second-order mutation to classify a given set of first-order mutants as possibly killable or possibly equivalent ones. The results suggest that the proposed method outperforms its predecessors with respect to the recall metric, without significant loss of classification precision. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    4. Quality metrics for mutation testing with applications to WS-BPEL compositions (pages 536–571)

      Antonia Estero-Botaro, Francisco Palomo-Lozano, Inmaculada Medina-Bulo, Juan José Domínguez-Jiménez and Antonio García-Domínguez

      Article first published online: 9 MAY 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1528

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      Mutation testing is a successful testing technique. However, it can be very costly. Cost reduction can be aided by an analysis of mutation operators, but this requires the definition of specialized metrics. A better quality metric for mutants would be a first step towards improved cost reduction techniques. This work introduces such a metric and a firm mutation tool for WS-BPEL compositions. Experimental results obtained by comparing different metrics on several compositions are presented. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    5. MuRanker: a mutant ranking tool (pages 572–604)

      Akbar Siami Namin, Xiaozhen Xue, Omar Rosas and Pankaj Sharma

      Article first published online: 11 AUG 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1542

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      MuRanker introduces and further implements the idea of ranking mutants. The tool ranks mutants according to their complexity in being detected by a test pool. The tool captures the distance between a mutant and the original program in deciding about ranking mutants. The empirical evaluation demonstrates the validity of the hypothesis stating that detecting medium and hard-to-kill mutants first will automatically detect easy-to-kill mutants, and thus, it reduces the number of test cases needed to achieve the mutation adequacy criterion.

    6. Metallaxis-FL: mutation-based fault localization (pages 605–628)

      Mike Papadakis and Yves Le Traon

      Article first published online: 9 SEP 2013 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1509

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      This paper proposes Metallaxis, a fault localization approach based on mutation analysis. The innovative part of Metallaxis is that is it uses mutants and links them with the faulty program places. Thus, mutants that are killed mostly by failing tests provide a good indication about the location of a fault. Experimentation using Metallaxis suggests that it is significantly more effective than statement-based approaches. This is true even in the case that mutation cost-reduction techniques, such as mutant sampling, are facilitated.

    7. Using mutation to assess fault detection capability of model review (pages 629–652)

      Paolo Arcaini, Angelo Gargantini and Elvinia Riccobene

      Article first published online: 25 APR 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1530

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      Model review is a static analysis approach that aims at determining if a model owns certain quality attributes. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating the fault detection capability of the NuSMV model advisor. The approach is based on the use of mutation analysis; to improve the quality of the analysis, the equivalence between a NuSMV model and any of its mutants is checked. Some experiments assess the fault detecting capability, precision, and accuracy of the NuSMV model advisor. Copyright©2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    8. Towards an automation of the mutation analysis dedicated to model transformation (pages 653–683)

      Vincent Aranega, Jean-Marie Mottu, Anne Etien, Thomas Degueule, Benoit Baudry and Jean-Luc Dekeyser

      Article first published online: 25 APR 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1532

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      Mutation analysis for model transformations is perceived as cumbersome because of the test set improvement manual step that requires a strong expertise and analysis from the tester. This paper presents a solution to go towards a full automation of the mutation analysis for model transformations. This solution uses model transformation traceability and mutation operator modelization embedded into an assistant that helps the tester to easily create new test models to improve the test set. Copyright©2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    9. Model-based mutation testing from security protocols in HLPSL (pages 684–711)

      Frédéric Dadeau, Pierre-Cyrille Héam, Rafik Kheddam, Ghazi Maatoug and Michael Rusinowitch

      Article first published online: 29 APR 2014 | DOI: 10.1002/stvr.1531

      Thumbnail image of graphical abstract

      This article proposes a model-based mutation testing approach for security protocols written in HLPSL. Mutation operators for protocol models, expressing real-world implementation choices or mistakes, are presented and evaluated on a large bench of real-world protocols. Finally, it describes a framework that helps automating the execution of the generated test cases. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION