Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
In the avionics domain, the use of structural coverage criteria is legally required in determining test suite adequacy. With the success of automated test generation tools, it is tempting to use these criteria as the basis for test generation. To more firmly establish the effectiveness of such approaches, we have generated and evaluated test suites to satisfy two coverage criteria using counterexample-based test generation and a random generation approach, contrasted against purely random test suites of equal size. Our results yield two key conclusions. First, coverage criteria satisfaction alone is a poor indication of test suite effectiveness. Second, the use of structural coverage as a supplement--not a target--for test generation can have a positive impact. These observations points to the dangers inherent in the increase in test automation in critical systems and the need for more research in how coverage criteria, generation approach, and system structure jointly influence test effectiveness. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2012 | 10.1007/978-3-642-28872-2_28 | FASE |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
test case generation,coverage criterion,test effectiveness,test suite adequacy,test automation,random test suite,automated test generation tool,test generation,test suite,test suite effectiveness,counterexample-based test generation | Test suite,Code coverage,System structure,Test Management Approach,Computer science,Avionics,Automation,Test case,Counterexample,Reliability engineering | Conference |
Volume | ISSN | Citations |
7212 | 0302-9743 | 37 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
1.10 | 26 | 4 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matt Staats | 1 | 871 | 32.29 |
| Gregory Gay | 2 | 299 | 15.27 |
| Michael W. Whalen | 3 | 1096 | 70.54 |
| Mats Heimdahl | 4 | 89 | 6.43 |