Juan Pablo Galeotti

Xavier Devroey, Alessio Gambi, Juan Pablo Galeotti et al.

Researchers and practitioners have designed and implemented various automated test case generators to support effective software testing. Such generators exist for various languages (e.g., Java, C#, or Python) and for various platforms (e.g., desktop, web, or mobile applications). Such generators exhibit varying effectiveness and efficiency, depending on the testing goals they aim to satisfy (e.g., unit-testing of libraries vs. system-testing of entire applications) and the underlying techniques they implement. In this context, practitioners need to be able to compare different generators to identify the most suited one for their requirements, while researchers seek to identify future research directions. This can be achieved through the systematic execution of large-scale evaluations of different generators. However, the execution of such empirical evaluations is not trivial and requires a substantial effort to collect benchmarks, setup the evaluation infrastructure, and collect and analyse the results. In this paper, we present our JUnit Generation benchmarking infrastructure (JUGE) supporting generators (e.g., search-based, random-based, symbolic execution, etc.) seeking to automate the production of unit tests for various purposes (e.g., validation, regression testing, fault localization, etc.). The primary goal is to reduce the overall effort, ease the comparison of several generators, and enhance the knowledge transfer between academia and industry by standardizing the evaluation and comparison process. Since 2013, eight editions of a unit testing tool competition, co-located with the Search-Based Software Testing Workshop, have taken place and used and updated JUGE. As a result, an increasing amount of tools (over ten) from both academia and industry have been evaluated on JUGE, matured over the years, and allowed the identification of future research directions.

Juan P. Galeotti, Carlo A. Furia, Eva May et al.

Verifiers that can prove programs correct against their full functional specification require, for programs with loops, additional annotations in the form of loop invariants---propeties that hold for every iteration of a loop. We show that significant loop invariant candidates can be generated by systematically mutating postconditions; then, dynamic checking (based on automatically generated tests) weeds out invalid candidates, and static checking selects provably valid ones. We present a framework that automatically applies these techniques to support a program prover, paving the way for fully automatic verification without manually written loop invariants: Applied to 28 methods (including 39 different loops) from various java.util classes (occasionally modified to avoid using Java features not fully supported by the static checker), our DYNAMATE prototype automatically discharged 97% of all proof obligations, resulting in automatic complete correctness proofs of 25 out of the 28 methods---outperforming several state-of-the-art tools for fully automatic verification.

Pablo Bendersky, Juan Pablo Galeotti, Diego Garbervetsky

We present an extension to the DynAlloy tool to navigate DynAlloy counterexamples: the DynAlloy Visualizer. The user interface mimics the functionality of a programming language debugger. Without this tool, a DynAlloy user is forced to deal with the internals of the Alloy intermediate representation in order to debug a flaw in her model.

Rodrigo Castaño, Juan Pablo Galeotti, Diego Garbervetsky et al.

In this paper we present an approach to check resource consumption contracts using an off-the-shelf static analyzer. We propose a set of annotations to support resource usage specifications, in particular, dynamic memory consumption constraints. Since dynamic memory may be recycled by a memory manager, the consumption of this resource is not monotone. The specification language can express both memory consumption and lifetime properties in a modular fashion. We develop a proof-of-concept implementation by extending Code Contracts' specification language. To verify the correctness of these annotations we rely on the Code Contracts static verifier and a points-to analysis. We also briefly discuss possible extensions of our approach to deal with non-linear expressions.