Toufique Ahmed

Yang Chen, Toufique Ahmed, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand et al.

Test suites in real-world projects are often large and achieve high code coverage, yet they remain insufficient for detecting all bugs. The abundance of unresolved issues in open-source project trackers highlights this gap. While regression tests are typically designed to ensure past functionality is preserved in the new version, they can also serve a complementary purpose: debugging the current version. Specifically, regression tests can (1) enhance the generation of reproduction tests for newly reported issues, and (2) validate that patches do not regress existing functionality. We present TestPrune, a fully automated technique that leverages issue tracker reports and strategically reuses regression tests for both bug reproduction and patch validation. A key contribution of TestPrune is its ability to automatically minimize the regression suite to a small, highly relevant subset of tests. Due to the predominance of LLM-based debugging techniques, this minimization is essential as large test suites exceed context limits, introduce noise, and inflate inference costs. TestPrune can be plugged into any agentic bug repair pipeline and orthogonally improve overall performance. As a proof of concept, we show that TestPrune leads to a 6.2%-9.0% relative increase in issue reproduction rate within the Otter framework and a 8.0%-12.9% relative increase in issue resolution rate within Agentless, SWE-Agent, and Trae agent on SWE-Bench Lite and SWE-Bench Verified benchmarks. Compared to the benefits, the model API cost overhead of TestPrune is minimal, at $0.02 and $0.05 per SWE-Bench instance using GPT-4o and Claude-3.7-Sonnet models, respectively.

Toufique Ahmed, Jatin Ganhotra, Avraham Shinnar et al.

Tests can be useful towards resolving issues on code repositories. However, relying too much on tests for issue resolution can lead to code that technically passes observed tests but actually misses important cases or even breaks functionality. This problem, called test overfitting, is exacerbated by the fact that issues usually lack readily executable tests. Instead, several issue resolution systems use tests auto-generated from issues, which may be imperfect. Some systems even iteratively refine code and tests jointly. This paper presents the first empirical study of test overfitting in this setting.

Toufique Ahmed, Martin Hirzel, Rangeet Pan et al.

Test-driven development (TDD) is the practice of writing tests first and coding later, and the proponents of TDD expound its numerous benefits. For instance, given an issue on a source code repository, tests can clarify the desired behavior among stake-holders before anyone writes code for the agreed-upon fix. Although there has been a lot of work on automated test generation for the practice "write code first, test later", there has been little such automation for TDD. Ideally, tests for TDD should be fail-to-pass (i.e., fail before the issue is resolved and pass after) and have good adequacy with respect to covering the code changed during issue resolution. This paper introduces TDD-Bench Verified, a high-quality benchmark suite of 449 issues mined from real-world GitHub code repositories. The benchmark's evaluation harness runs only relevant tests in isolation for simple yet accurate coverage measurements, and the benchmark's dataset is filtered both by human judges and by execution in the harness. This paper also presents Auto-TDD, an LLM-based solution that takes as input an issue description and a codebase (prior to issue resolution) and returns as output a test that can be used to validate the changes made for resolving the issue. Our evaluation shows that Auto-TDD yields a better fail-to-pass rate than the strongest prior work while also yielding high coverage adequacy. Overall, we hope that this work helps make developers more productive at resolving issues while simultaneously leading to more robust fixes.

Toufique Ahmed, Jatin Ganhotra, Rangeet Pan et al.

While there has been plenty of work on generating tests from existing code, there has been limited work on generating tests from issues. A correct test must validate the code patch that resolves the issue. This paper focuses on the scenario where that code patch does not yet exist. Doing so supports two major use-cases. First, it supports TDD (test-driven development), the discipline of "test first, write code later" that has well-documented benefits for human software engineers. Second, it also validates SWE (software engineering) agents, which generate code patches for resolving issues. This paper introduces TDD-Bench-Verified, a benchmark for generating tests from issues, and Otter, an LLM-based solution for this task. Otter augments LLMs with rule-based analysis to check and repair their outputs, and introduces a novel self-reflective action planner. Experiments show Otter outperforming state-of-the-art systems for generating tests from issues, in addition to enhancing systems that generate patches from issues. We hope that Otter helps make developers more productive at resolving issues and leads to more robust, well-tested code.