Ali Parsai

Ali Parsai, Serge Demeyer

The null-type is a major source of faults in Java programs, and its overuse has a severe impact on software maintenance. Unfortunately traditional mutation testing operators do not cover null-type faults by default, hence cannot be used as a preventive measure. We address this problem by designing four new mutation operators which model null-type faults explicitly. We show how these mutation operators are capable of revealing the missing tests, and we demonstrate that these mutation operators are useful in practice. For the latter, we analyze the test suites of 15 open-source projects to describe the trade-offs related to the adoption of these operators to strengthen the test suite.

Ali Parsai, Serge Demeyer

Software code complexity is a well-studied property to determine software component health. However, the existing code complexity metrics do not directly take into account the fault-proneness aspect of the code. We propose a metric called mutant density where we use mutation as a method to introduce artificial faults in code, and count the number of possible mutations per line. We show how this metric can be used to perform helpful analysis of real-life software projects.

Ali Parsai, Alessandro Murgia, Serge Demeyer

Mutation testing is a well-studied method for increasing the quality of a test suite. We designed LittleDarwin as a mutation testing framework able to cope with large and complex Java software systems, while still being easily extensible with new experimental components. LittleDarwin addresses two existing problems in the domain of mutation testing: having a tool able to work within an industrial setting, and yet, be open to extension for cutting edge techniques provided by academia. LittleDarwin already offers higher-order mutation, null type mutants, mutant sampling, manual mutation, and mutant subsumption analysis. There is no tool today available with all these features that is able to work with typical industrial software systems.

Ali Parsai, Alessandro Murgia, Serge Demeyer

Mutation testing is a standard technique to evaluate the quality of a test suite. Due to its computationally intensive nature, many approaches have been proposed to make this technique feasible in real case scenarios. Among these approaches, uniform random mutant selection has been demonstrated to be simple and promising. However, works on this area analyze mutant samples at project level mainly on projects with adequate test suites. In this paper, we fill this lack of empirical validation by analyzing random mutant selection at class level on projects with non-adequate test suites. First, we show that uniform random mutant selection underachieves the expected results. Then, we propose a new approach named weighted random mutant selection which generates more representative mutant samples. Finally, we show that representative mutant samples are larger for projects with high test adequacy.

Ali Parsai, Alessandro Murgia, Quinten David Soetens et al.

Refactoring is an activity that improves the internal structure of the code without altering its external behavior. When performed on the production code, the tests can be used to verify that the external behavior of the production code is preserved. However, when the refactoring is performed on test code, there is no safety net that assures that the external behavior of the test code is preserved. In this paper, we propose to adopt mutation testing as a means to verify if the behavior of the test code is preserved after refactoring. Moreover, we also show how this approach can be used to identify the part of the test code which is improperly refactored.

Ali Parsai, Quinten David Soetens, Alessandro Murgia et al.

With the increasing popularity of continuous integration, algorithms for selecting the minimal test-suite to cover a given set of changes are in order. This paper reports on how polymorphism can handle false negatives in a previous algorithm which uses method-level changes in the base-code to deduce which tests need to be rerun. We compare the approach with and without polymorphism on two distinct cases ---PMD and CruiseControl--- and discovered an interesting trade-off: incorporating polymorphism results in more relevant tests to be included in the test suite (hence improves accuracy), however comes at the cost of a larger test suite (hence increases the time to run the minimal test-suite).