Davide Corradini

Davide Corradini, Amedeo Zampieri, Michele Pasqua et al.

Test coverage is a standard measure used to evaluate the completeness of a test suite. Coverage is typically computed on source code, by assessing the extent of source code entities (e.g., statements, data dependencies, control dependencies) that are exercised when running test cases. When considering REST APIs, an alternative perspective to assess test suite completeness is with respect to the service definition. This paper presents Restats, a test coverage tool for REST APIs that supports eight state-of-the-art test coverage metrics with a black-box perspective, i.e., only relying on the OpenAPI interface specification of the REST API under test. In fact, metrics are computed by only observing the HTTP requests and responses occurring at testing time, and no access to source/compiled code of the REST API is required. These coverage metrics come in handy for: (i) developers and test engineers working at development and maintenance tasks; (ii) stakeholders and customers who want to evaluate the completeness of acceptance tests; (iii) researches interested in comparing different automated test case generation strategies.

Davide Corradini, Amedeo Zampieri, Michele Pasqua et al.

In literature, we can find research tools to automatically generate test cases for RESTful APIs, addressing the specificity of this particular programming domain. However, no direct comparison of these tools is available to guide developers in deciding which tool best fits their REST API project. In this paper, we present the results of an empirical comparison of automated black-box test case generation approaches for REST APIs. We surveyed the available black-box testing tools that have been proposed in recent literature, finding four usable prototypes: RestTestGen, RESTler, bBOXRT and RESTest. We used these tools to generate test cases for 14 real-world REST services. Then, testing results have been analyzed and compared in terms of robustness (i.e., success rate) and test coverage. Among the considered tools, RESTler appears to be the most solid, able to successfully test all case studies (the other tools experienced crashes). Conversely, test cases generated by RestTestGen scored the highest coverage, suggesting that its testing strategy is the most effective in testing REST APIs.

Mariano Ceccato, Davide Corradini, Luca Gazzola et al.

The ecosystem in which mobile applications run is highly heterogeneous and configurable. All layers upon which mobile apps are built offer wide possibilities of variations, from the device and the hardware, to the operating system and middleware, up to the user preferences and settings. Testing all possible configurations exhaustively, before releasing the app, is unaffordable. As a consequence, the app may exhibit different, including faulty, behaviours when executed in the field, under specific configurations. In this paper, we describe a framework that can be instantiated to support in-vivo testing of a mobile app. The framework monitors the configuration in the field and triggers in-vivo testing when an untested configuration is recognized. Experimental results show that the overhead introduced by monitoring is unnoticeable to negligible (i.e., 0-6%) depending on the device being used (high- vs. low-end). In-vivo test execution required on average 3s: if performed upon screen lock activation, it introduces just a slight delay before locking the device.