Classifying and Qualifying GUI Defects

Lelli, Valéria; Blouin, Arnaud; Baudry, Benoît

doi:10.1109/icst.2015.7102582

Cited by 36 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We claim that these limitations stem from two facts: first, there is a lack of proper abstractions to build test model for testing advanced GUIs; second, only few GUI oracles are currently considered while we demonstrated in our previous work the diversity of faults that can affect GUIs [20].…”

Section: B Limits Of the Current Gui Testing Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, testing advanced GUIs requires the detection of other kinds of errors as explained in Section II-B. In our previous work, we empirically identified and classified various kinds of GUI errors that can affect both standard and advanced GUIs [20]. For instance with Latexdraw, a GUI oracle must be able to state whether a shape has been correctly moved.…”

Section: B Limits Of the Current Gui Testing Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our previous work, we identified and classified standard errors that affect GUIs [20]. Based on this classification, we aim at automatically producing GUI oracles that are able to find these various kinds of errors.…”

Section: Test Scriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On model-based testing advanced GUIs

Lelli

Blouin

Baudry

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphical User Interface (GUI) design is currently shifting from designing GUIs composed of standard widgets to designing GUIs relying on more natural interactions and ad hoc widgets. This shift is meant to support the advent of GUIs providing users with more adapted and natural interactions, and the support of new input devices such as multi-touch screens. Standard widgets (e.g. buttons) are more and more replaced by ad hoc ones (e.g. the drawing area of graphical editors), and interactions are shifting from mono-event (e.g. button pressures) to multi-event interactions (e.g. multi-touch and gesture-based interactions). As a consequence, the current GUI model-based testing approaches, which target event-based systems, show their limits when applied to test such new advanced GUIs. The work introduced in this paper establishes three contributions: a precise analysis of the reasons of these current limits; a proposition to tackle the identified limits by leveraging the Malai GUI specification language and by proposing the concept of interaction-action-flow graph; feedback from two use cases, an industrial project and an open-source application, where the proposed approach has been applied.

show abstract

Section: B Limits Of the Current Gui Testing Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Limits Of the Current Gui Testing Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On model-based testing advanced GUIs

Lelli

Blouin

Baudry

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In GUI testing, a GUI failure can be defined as a runtime manifestation of an unexpected GUI state [16]. When we test an app by 2 consecutive orientation changes (or DOC), the expected GUI state should be the same as before the DOC, unless the GUI specifications prescribe a different behavior.…”

Section: The Doc Gui Failure Classification Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They consist in the manifestation of an unexpected GUI state, according to Lelli et al [16]. If an Android app does not correctly handle an orientation change event, it is likely that this event results in different types of GUI failures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why does the orientation change mess up my Android application? From GUI failures to code faults

Amalfitano

Riccio

Paiva

et al. 2017

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis paper investigates the failures exposed in mobile apps by the mobile-specific event of changing the screen orientation. We focus on GUI failures resulting in unexpected GUI states that should be avoided to improve the apps quality and to ensure better user experience. We propose a classification framework that distinguishes 3 main classes of GUI failures due to orientation changes and exploit it in 2 studies that investigate the impact of such failures in Android apps. The studies involved both open-source and apps from Google Play that were specifically tested exposing them to orientation change events. The results showed that more than 88% of these apps were affected by GUI failures, some classes of GUI failures were more common than others, and some GUI objects were more frequently involved. The app source code analysis allowed us to identify 6 classes of common faults causing specific GUI failures. KEYWORDSAndroid bugs, Android testing, GUI failures, GUI testing, mobile testing, orientation change INTRODUCTIONOver the last decade, the number of users of mobile technology and smartphones has increased considerably. The total number of smartphone users worldwide is forecast to surpass 2.5 billion in 2019 [1].This causes a constant demand for new software applications running on these devices (apps). As of the month of June 2016, both Android and iOS users had the opportunity to choose from among more than 2 million apps [2].Mobile technology has radically changed the lifestyle of billions of people around the world. We use mobile apps for several hours every day, entrust them our sensitive data, and perform a large variety of activities through them, including critical tasks.The demand for app quality has grown together with their spread. Apps users require them to be reliable, robust, efficient, secure, usable, etc.As a consequence, software developers should give proper consideration to the quality of their applications by adopting suitable quality assurance techniques, such as testing.In the last decade, the research community has devoted great interest to the mobile app testing field. Several testing approaches have been proposed to assess different quality aspects of mobile applications [3], such as functionality [4], performance [5], security [6,7], responsiveness [8], and energy consumption [9].Since mobile apps are event-driven systems, many proposed techniques solicit them by means of sequences of events [10]. However, because of the peculiarities of the mobile devices, these apps should be tested with appositely crafted approaches [11]. As an example, testing processes should devote particular attention to exercise the apps through mobile-specific events, such as sending an application to the background and resuming it, receiving a call, changing the state of the network connections, or changing the orientation of the device.Among these types of events, the orientation change deserves special attention. It is a peculiar event in mobile platforms that causes the switch of the running app b...

show abstract