software testing

Log-based Slicing for System-level Test Cases
Regression testing is arguably one of the most important activities in software testing. However, its cost-effectiveness and usefulness can be largely impaired by complex system test cases that are poorly designed (e.g., test cases containing multiple test scenarios combined into a single test case) and that require a large amount of time and resources to run. One way to mitigate this issue is decomposing such system test cases into smaller, separate test cases—each of them with only one test scenario and with its corresponding assertions—so that the execution time of the decomposed test cases is lower than the original test cases, while the test effectiveness of the original test cases is preserved. This decomposition can be achieved with program slicing techniques, since test cases are software programs too. However, existing static and dynamic slicing techniques exhibit limitations when (1) the test cases use external resources, (2) code instrumentation is not a viable option, and (3) test execution is expensive. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, called DS3 (Decomposing System teSt caSe), which automatically decomposes a complex system test case into separate test case slices. The idea is to use test case execution logs, obtained from past regression testing sessions, to identify ``hidden'' dependencies in the slices generated by static slicing. Since logs include run-time information about the system under test, we can use them to extract access and usage of global resources and refine the slices generated by static slicing. We evaluated DS3 in terms of slicing effectiveness and compared it with a vanilla static slicing tool. We also compared the slices obtained by DS3 with the corresponding original system test cases, in terms of test efficiency and effectiveness. The evaluation results on one proprietary system and one open-source system show that DS3 is able to accurately identify the dependencies related to the usage of global resources, which vanilla static slicing misses. Moreover, the generated test case slices are, on average, 3.56 times faster than original system test cases and they exhibit no significant loss in terms of fault detection effectiveness.
What Are We Really Testing in Mutation Testing for Machine Learning? A Critical Reflection
Mutation testing is a well-established technique for assessing a test suite’s effectiveness by injecting artificial faults into production code. In recent years, mutation testing has been extended to machine learning (ML) systems and deep learning (DL) in particular. Researchers have proposed approaches, tools, and statistically sound heuristics to determine whether mutants in DL systems are killed or not. However, as we will argue in this work, questions can be raised to what extent currently used mutation testing techniques in DL are actually in line with the classical interpretation of mutation testing. As we will discuss, in current approaches, the distinction between production and test code is blurry, the realism of mutation operators can be challenged, and generally, the degree to which the hypotheses underlying classical mutation testing (competent programmer hypothesis and coupling effect hypothesis) are followed lacks focus and explicit mappings. In this paper, we observe that ML model development follows a test-driven development (TDD) process, where data points (test data) with labels (implicit assertions) correspond to test cases in traditional software. Based on this perspective, we critically revisit existing mutation operators for ML, the mutation testing paradigm for ML, and its fundamental hypotheses. Based on our observations, we propose several action points for better alignment of mutation testing techniques for ML with paradigms and vocabularies of classical mutation testing.