Symbolic execution is a popular technique for automatically generating test cases achieving high structural coverage. Symbolic execution suffers from scalability issues since the number of symbolic paths that need to be explored is very large (or even infinite) for most realistic programs. To address this problem, we propose a technique, Simple Static Partitioning, for parallelizing symbolic execution. The technique uses a set of pre-conditions to partition the symbolic execution tree, allowing us to effectively distribute symbolic execution and decrease the time needed to explore the symbolic execution tree. The proposed technique requires little communication between parallel instances and is designed to work with a variety of architectures, ranging from fast multi-core machines to cloud or grid computing environments. We implement our technique in the Java PathFinder verification tool-set and evaluate it on six case studies with respect to the performance improvement when exploring a finite symbolic execution tree and performing automatic test generation.We demonstrate speedup in both the analysis time over finite symbolic execution trees and in the time required to generate tests relative to sequential execution, with a maximum analysis time speedup of 90x observed using 128 workers and a maximum test generation speedup of 70x observed using 64 workers.

A number of structural coverage criteria have been proposed to measure the adequacy of testing efforts. In the avionics and other critical systems domains, test suites satisfying structural coverage criteria are mandated by standards. With the advent of powerful automated test generation tools, it is tempting to simply generate test inputs to satisfy these structural coverage criteria. However, while techniques to produce coverage-providing tests are well established, the effectiveness of such approaches in terms of fault detection ability has not been adequately studied. In this work, we evaluate the effectiveness of test suites generated to satisfy four coverage criteria through counterexample-based test generation and a random generation approach-where tests are randomly generated until coverage is achieved-contrasted against purely random test suites of equal size. Our results yield three key conclusions. First, coverage criteria satisfaction alone can be a poor indication of fault finding effectiveness, with inconsistent results between the seven case examples (and random test suites of equal size often providing similar-or even higher-levels of fault finding). Second, the use of structural coverage as a supplement-rather than a target-for test generation can have a positive impact, with random test suites reduced to a coverage-providing subset detecting up to 13.5% more faults than test suites generated specifically to achieve coverage. Finally, Observable MC/DC, a criterion designed to account for program structure and the selection of the test oracle, can-in part-address the failings of traditional structural coverage criteria, allowing for the generation of test suites achieving higher levels of fault detection than random test suites of equal size. These observations point to risks inherent in the increase in test automation in critical systems, and the need for more research in how coverage criteria, test generation approaches, the test oracle used, and system structure jointly influence test effectiveness.

Automated test generation techniques can efficiently produce test data that systematically cover structural aspects of a program. In the absence of a specification, a common assumption is that these tests relieve a developer of most of the work, as the act of testing is reduced to checking the results of the tests. Although this assumption has persisted for decades, there has been no conclusive evidence to date confirming it. However, the fact that the approach has only seen a limited uptake in industry suggests the contrary, and calls into question its practical usefulness. To investigate this issue, we performed a controlled experiment comparing a total of 49 subjects split between writing tests manually and writing tests with the aid of an automated unit test generation tool, EVOSUITE. We found that, on one hand, tool support leads to clear improvements in commonly applied quality metrics such as code coverage (up to 300% increase). However, on the other hand, there was no measurable improvement in the number of bugs actually found by developers. Our results not only cast some doubt on how the research community evaluates test generation tools, but also point to improvements and future work necessary before automated test generation tools will be widely adopted by practitioners.

Work on automated test generation has produced several tools capable of generating test data which achieves high structural coverage over a program. In the absence of a specification, developers are expected to manually construct or verify the test oracle for each test input. Nevertheless, it is assumed that these generated tests ease the task of testing for the developer, as testing is reduced to checking the results of tests. While this assumption has persisted for decades, there has been no conclusive evidence to date confirming it. However, the limited adoption in industry indicates this assumption may not be correct, and calls into question the practical value of test generation tools. To investigate this issue, we performed two controlled experiments comparing a total of 97 subjects split between writing tests manually and writing tests with the aid of an automated unit test generation tool, EVOSUITE. We found that, on one hand, tool support leads to clear improvements in commonly applied quality metrics such as code coverage (up to 300% increase). However, on the other hand, there was no measurable improvement in the number of bugs actually found by developers. Our results not only cast some doubt on how the research community evaluates test generation tools, but also point to improvements and future work necessary before automated test generation tools will be widely adopted by practitioners.

No abstract