Mutation testing tools- an empirical study

Singh, Deepankar; Suri, Bharti

doi:10.1049/cp.2013.2596

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While most of these tools target implementation-level languages, the C and Java programming languages are the primary focus of mutation testing tools at the implementation level. According to Singh and Suri [16], Java has the highest number of mutation testing tools among different languages. These tools include MuJava, PIT (or PITest), Judy, Jester, Jumble, and Bacterio.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving towards a Mutant-Based Testing Tool for Verifying Behavior Maintenance in Test Code Refactorings

Teixeira,

Silveira,

Guerra

2023

Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating mutation testing behavior can help decide whether refactoring successfully maintains the expected initial test results. Moreover, manually performing this analytical work is both time-consuming and prone to errors. This paper extends an approach to assess test code behavior and proposes a tool called MeteoR. This tool comprises an IDE plugin to detect issues that may arise during test code refactoring, reducing the effort required to perform evaluations. A preliminary assessment was conducted to validate the tool and ensure the proposed test code refactoring approach is adequate. By analyzing not only the mutation score but also the generated mutants in the pre- and post-refactoring process, results show that the approach is capable of checking whether the behavior of the mutants remains unchanged throughout the refactoring process. This proposal represents one more step toward the practice of test code refactoring. It can improve overall software quality, allowing developers and testers to safely refactor the test code in a scalable and automated way.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving towards a Mutant-Based Testing Tool for Verifying Behavior Maintenance in Test Code Refactorings

Teixeira,

Silveira,

Guerra

2023

Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These limitations led to the dismissal of the technique by many software testers and organizations despite its effectiveness. Researchers reveal the unpopularity of industrial mutation testing is due to the hefty expenses associated with the procedure [10]- [12]. Generating, running, and executing an enormous number of mutants against a test set is considered very expensive [13], time-consuming, and onerous as it requires substantial computational resources that call for large storage space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation on Java Mutation Testing Tools

Park¹,

Hassan

Halim

et al. 2022

JOIV : Int. J. Inform. Visualization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software Testing is one of the most significant phases within the software development life cycle since software bugs can be costly and traumatic. However, the traditional software testing process is not enough on its own as some undiscovered faults might still exist due to the test cases’ inability to detect all underlying faults. Amidst the various proposed techniques of test suites’ efficiency detection comes mutation testing, one of the most effective approaches as declared by many researchers. Nevertheless, there is not enough research on how well the mutation testing tools adhere to the theory of mutation or how well their mutation operators are performing the tasks they were developed for. This research paper presents an investigative study on two different mutation testing tools for Java programming language, namely PIT and µJava. The study aims to point out the weaknesses and strengths of each tool involved through performing mutation testing on four different open-source Java programs to identify the best mutation tool among them. The study aims to further identify and compare the mutation operators of each tool by calculating the mutation score. That is, the operators’ performance is evaluated with the mutation score, with the presumption that the more prominent the number of killed mutants is, the higher the mutation score, thus the more effective the mutation operator and the affiliated tool.

show abstract