Should We Care about "Don't Care" Testing Inputs?: Empirical Investigation of Pair-Wise Testing

S. Vilkomir, Galen Pennell
{"title":"Should We Care about \"Don't Care\" Testing Inputs?: Empirical Investigation of Pair-Wise Testing","authors":"S. Vilkomir, Galen Pennell","doi":"10.1109/ICSTW.2016.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When test sets are generated according to a coverage criterion, it is often sufficient to fix values only for some of the inputs to achieve 100% coverage. Other inputs are immaterial and the coverage is achieved with any of their values (\"don't care\" values). The research question is: How do these \"don't care\" values (which can reach up to 20% of all input values) influence the effectiveness and other characteristics of test sets? The paper empirically investigated this question for pair-wise test sets applied for logical expressions with different sizes and complexities. Variations of the effectiveness and the Modified Condition/Decision Coverage (MC/DC) levels of pair-wise test sets were analyzed. Our results show that these variations are low and so pair-wise test sets with different \"don't care\" values are very stable. Any test set with randomly selected \"don't care\" values can be similarly used for practical testing.","PeriodicalId":335145,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2016.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

When test sets are generated according to a coverage criterion, it is often sufficient to fix values only for some of the inputs to achieve 100% coverage. Other inputs are immaterial and the coverage is achieved with any of their values ("don't care" values). The research question is: How do these "don't care" values (which can reach up to 20% of all input values) influence the effectiveness and other characteristics of test sets? The paper empirically investigated this question for pair-wise test sets applied for logical expressions with different sizes and complexities. Variations of the effectiveness and the Modified Condition/Decision Coverage (MC/DC) levels of pair-wise test sets were analyzed. Our results show that these variations are low and so pair-wise test sets with different "don't care" values are very stable. Any test set with randomly selected "don't care" values can be similarly used for practical testing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们应该关心“不关心”的测试输入吗?:配对检验的实证研究
当根据覆盖率标准生成测试集时,通常仅为某些输入固定值以达到100%覆盖率就足够了。其他输入是无关紧要的,覆盖范围是用它们的任何值(“不关心”值)实现的。研究的问题是:这些“不关心”的值(可以达到所有输入值的20%)如何影响测试集的有效性和其他特性?本文对应用于不同大小和复杂性的逻辑表达式的成对测试集进行了实证研究。分析了成对测试集的有效性和修正条件/决策覆盖(MC/DC)水平的变化。我们的结果表明,这些变化很小,因此具有不同“不关心”值的成对测试集非常稳定。任何具有随机选择的“不关心”值的测试集都可以类似地用于实际测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nequivack: Assessing Mutation Score Confidence A Tool for Automated Inspection of Software Design Documents and Its Empirical Evaluation in an Aviation Industry Setting Difference in Quality of Test Architecture between Service Providers and Subcontractors Diversity-Aware Mutation Adequacy Criterion for Improving Fault Detection Capability Are We There Yet? How Redundant and Equivalent Mutants Affect Determination of Test Completeness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1