Regression containment through source change isolation

Ness, B.; Ngo, Van Chan

doi:10.1109/cmpsac.1997.625082

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [21] and [33], the authors propose a search algorithm to isolate the fault-inducing change after a regression test fails at the developer's site. In contrast, Sahara assumes that the upgrade has been tested thoroughly at the developer's site and is deployed after all tests have passed.…”

Section: Dynamic Behavior Deviations Xie and Notkinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sahara: Guiding the debugging of failed software upgrades

Bachwani

Crameri

Bianchini

et al. 2011

2011 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Today, debugging failed software upgrades is a long and tedious activity, as developers may have to consider large sections of code to locate the bug. We argue that failed upgrade debugging can be simplified by exploiting the characteristics of upgrade problems to prioritize the set of routines to consider. In particular, previous work has shown that differences between the computing environment in the developer's and users' sites cause most upgrade problems. Based on this observation, we design and implement Sahara, a system that identifies the aspects of the environment that are most likely the culprits of the misbehavior, finds the subset of routines that relate to those aspects, and selects an even smaller subset of routines to debug first. We evaluate Sahara for three real upgrade problems with the OpenSSH suite, one synthetic problem with the SQLite database, and one synthetic problem with the uServer Web server. Our results show that the system produces accurate recommendations comprising only a small number of routines.

show abstract

Section: Dynamic Behavior Deviations Xie and Notkinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sahara: Guiding the debugging of failed software upgrades

Bachwani

Crameri

Bianchini

et al. 2011

2011 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ness and Ngo [5] present a method used at Cray research for compiler development. Their so-called regression containment is activated when the automated regression test fails.…”

Section: A True Storymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is only one other work on automated delta debugging we have found: the paper on regression containment by Ness and Ngo [5], presented in Section 1 .7 Ness and Ngo use simpIe linear and binary search to identify a single failure-inducing change. Their goal, however, lies not in debugging, but in isolating (i.e.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yesterday, my program worked. Today, it does not. Why?

Zeller

1999

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imagine some program and a number of changes. If none of these changes is applied ("yesterday"), the program works. If all changes are applied ("today"), the program does not work. Which change is responsible for the failure? We present an efficient algorithm that determines the minimal set of failureinducing changes. Our delta debugging prototype tracked down a single failureinducing change from 178,000 changed GDB lines within a few hours.

show abstract

“…We can repeat the same experiments for component B (with old, trusted components A, C, D and E) and It is possible to repeat the test run to pinpoint the specific modules that failed the test cases. Although this process is not safe, it can be automated and has been found to be useRil [8]. In fact, this is an application of group testing or combinatorial group testing [l4].…”

Section: Regression Testing Process In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Ignoring the fault. Ignoring a fault is not common but has been observed [8]. When the deadline is close, an engineer tends to say that some bugs are either not important or will rarely happen, thus there is no need to fix it.…”

Section: Regression Testing Process In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%