Noor Nashid

Mobina Shahbandeh, Parsa Alian, Noor Nashid et al.

End-to-end web testing is challenging due to the need to explore diverse web application functionalities. Current state-of-the-art methods, such as WebCanvas, are not designed for broad functionality exploration; they rely on specific, detailed task descriptions, limiting their adaptability in dynamic web environments. We introduce NaviQAte, which frames web application exploration as a question-and-answer task, generating action sequences for functionalities without requiring detailed parameters. Our three-phase approach utilizes advanced large language models like GPT-4o for complex decision-making and cost-effective models, such as GPT-4o mini, for simpler tasks. NaviQAte focuses on functionality-guided web application navigation, integrating multi-modal inputs such as text and images to enhance contextual understanding. Evaluations on the Mind2Web-Live and Mind2Web-Live-Abstracted datasets show that NaviQAte achieves a 44.23% success rate in user task navigation and a 38.46% success rate in functionality navigation, representing a 15% and 33% improvement over WebCanvas. These results underscore the effectiveness of our approach in advancing automated web application testing.

Sijia Gu, Noor Nashid, Ali Mesbah

Automating unit test generation remains a significant challenge, particularly for complex methods in real-world projects. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have made strides in code generation, they struggle to achieve high branch coverage due to their limited ability to reason about intricate control flow structures. To address this limitation, we introduce Panta, a technique that emulates the iterative process human developers follow when analyzing code and constructing test cases. Panta integrates static control flow analysis and dynamic code coverage analysis to systematically guide LLMs in identifying uncovered execution paths and generating better test cases. By incorporating an iterative feedback-driven mechanism, our technique continuously refines test generation based on static and dynamic path coverage insights, ensuring more comprehensive and effective testing. Our empirical evaluation, conducted on classes with high cyclomatic complexity from open-source projects, demonstrates that Panta achieves 26% higher line coverage and 23% higher branch coverage compared to the state-of-the-art.

Marjane Namavar, Noor Nashid, Ali Mesbah

Training a deep learning model on source code has gained significant traction recently. Since such models reason about vectors of numbers, source code needs to be converted to a code representation before vectorization. Numerous approaches have been proposed to represent source code, from sequences of tokens to abstract syntax trees. However, there is no systematic study to understand the effect of code representation on learning performance. Through a controlled experiment, we examine the impact of various code representations on model accuracy and usefulness in deep learning-based program repair. We train 21 different generative models that suggest fixes for name-based bugs, including 14 different homogeneous code representations, four mixed representations for the buggy and fixed code, and three different embeddings. We assess if fix suggestions produced by the model in various code representations are automatically patchable, meaning they can be transformed to a valid code that is ready to be applied to the buggy code to fix it. We also conduct a developer study to qualitatively evaluate the usefulness of inferred fixes in different code representations. Our results highlight the importance of code representation and its impact on learning and usefulness. Our findings indicate that (1) while code abstractions help the learning process, they can adversely impact the usefulness of inferred fixes from a developer's point of view; this emphasizes the need to look at the patches generated from the practitioner's perspective, which is often neglected in the literature, (2) mixed representations can outperform homogeneous code representations, (3) bug type can affect the effectiveness of different code representations; although current techniques use a single code representation for all bug types, there is no single best code representation applicable to all bug types.