[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3629479.3629499acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbqsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An experiment on software test creation: can EvoSuite help test teaching?

Published: 06 December 2023 Publication History

Abstract

This paper presents the execution of a software testing experiment, where participants were tasked with identifying test cases from a provided software system and implementing the identified test cases. The objective of this study was to investigate students’ perception in test case creation. Participants were divided into two groups: a control group, which received the source code and documentation, and an experimental group, which received, in addition to the source code and documentation, a test suite generated by the EvoSuite tool. Furthermore, participants responded to three questionnaires: one about the project, another about their prior knowledge profile, and one providing feedback on their perception of the experiment and software testing education. Participants made it clear that the EvoSuite tool helped uncover new test scenarios. Additionally, it assisted in identifying new ways to test code segments that participants previously had no prior knowledge of how to access. Overall, the study suggests that the use of code generation tools can be a valuable addition to software testing education, aiding students in developing their testing skills and improving the quality of their tests. This work can benefit both teachers and students in computer science-related courses.

References

[1]
P. Ammann and J. Offutt. 2016. Introduction to Software Testing (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316771273
[2]
M. Aniche, F. Hermans, and A. van Deursen. 2019. Pragmatic Software Testing Education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287461
[3]
V. Basili and H. Dieter Rombach. 1988. The TAME Project: Towards Improvement-oriented Software Environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) (1988), 758–773.
[4]
F. B. V. Benitti. 2018. A Methodology to Define Learning Objects Granularity: A Case Study in Software Testing. Informatics Educ. 17 (2018), 1–20.
[5]
L. Bijlsma, N. Doorn, H. Passier, H. Pootjes, and S. Stuurman. 2021. How Do Students Test Software Units?. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Joint Track on Software Engineering Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET52601.2021.00029
[6]
C. K. D. Corte, A. C. Riestin, M. A. G. Silva, E. F. Barbosa, and Jose Carlos Maldonado. 2007. PROGTEST: Ambiente para submissão e avaliação de trabalhos práticos. In XVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE 2007) Workshop sobre Ambientes de Apoio à Aprendizagem de Algoritmos e Programação. São Paulo, SP.
[7]
S. H. Edwards. 2004. Using Software Testing to Move Students from Trial-and-Error to Reflection-in-Action. SIGCSE Bull. 36, 1 (mar 2004), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1028174.971312
[8]
F. Ferreira, G. Vale, J. P. Diniz, and E. Figueiredo. 2020. On the Proposal and Evaluation of a Test-Enriched Dataset for Configurable Systems. In Proceedings of the 14th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (Magdeburg, Germany) (VaMoS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 16, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377024.3377045
[9]
T. Ferreira, D. Viana, J. Fernandes, and R. Santos. 2018. Identifying Emerging Topics and Difficulties in Software Engineering Education in Brazil. In Proceedings of the XXXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3266237.3266247
[10]
G. Fraser and A. Arcuri. 2011. EvoSuite: Automatic Test Suite Generation for Object-Oriented Software. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering (Szeged, Hungary) (ESEC/FSE ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 416–419. https://doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025179
[11]
V. Garousi, M. Felderer, M. Kuhrmann, and K. Herkiloğlu. 2017. What Industry Wants from Academia in Software Testing? Hearing Practitioners’ Opinions. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (Karlskrona, Sweden) (EASE’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084264
[12]
V. Garousi, A. Rainer, P. Lauvås, and A. Arcuri. 2020. Software-testing education: A systematic literature mapping. Journal of Systems and Software 165 (2020), 110570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110570
[13]
A. Goffi, A. Gorla, M. D. Ernst, and M. Pezzè. 2016. Automatic Generation of Oracles for Exceptional Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (Saarbrücken, Germany) (ISSTA 2016). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1145/2931037.2931061
[14]
B. Gopal, S. Cooper, J. Olmanson, and R. Bockmon. 2021. Student Difficulties in Unit Testing, Integration Testing, and Continuous Integration: An Exploratory Pilot Qualitative Study. Psychology of Programming Interest Group (2021).
[15]
D. Huizinga and A. Kolawa. 2007. Automated Defect Prevention: Best Practices in Software Management.
[16]
A. Joshi, S. Kale, S. Chandel, and D. Pal. 2015. Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7 (01 2015), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
[17]
M. Leppänen, S. Mäkinen, M. Pagels, V.-P. Eloranta, J. Itkonen, M. V. Mäntylä, and T. Männistö. 2015. The highways and country roads to continuous deployment. IEEE Software 32, 2 (Mar 2015), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2015.50
[18]
N. Lojo and A. Fox. 2022. Teaching Test-Writing As a Variably-Scaffolded Programming Pattern. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1 (Dublin, Ireland) (ITiCSE ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502718.3524789
[19]
J. Mendes, Y. Costa, K. Frazão, R. Santos, D. Santos, and L. Rivero. 2019. Identificação das Expectativas e Dificuldades de Alunos de Graduação no Ensino de Engenharia de Software. In Anais do XXVII Workshop sobre Educação em Computação (Belém). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 334–347. https://doi.org/10.5753/wei.2019.6640
[20]
G. G. Moreira, S. Reinehr, A. Malucelli, and F. Van Amstel. 2023. ProTesters: A Board Game for Teaching the Testing Process. In Proceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (Curitiba, Brazil) (SBQS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 28, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571473.3571503
[21]
E. Oliveira Jr, T. Colanzi, A. Amaral, A. Cordeiro, J. C. Neto, and S. Souza. 2021. Ensino, Aprendizagem e Uso Profissional da UML em Maringá e Região. In Anais do XXIX Workshop sobre Educação em Computação (Evento Online). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 328–337. https://doi.org/10.5753/wei.2021.15924
[22]
C. Pacheco and M. D. Ernst. 2007. Randoop: Feedback-directed Random Testing for Java. In OOPSLA 2007 Companion, Montreal, Canada. ACM.
[23]
L. Paschoal and S. Souza. 2018. A Survey on Software Testing Education in Brazil. https://doi.org/10.1145/3275245.3275289
[24]
G. Petrović, M. Ivanković, G. Fraser, and R. Just. 2022. Practical Mutation Testing at Scale: A view from Google. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 10 (2022), 3900–3912. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3107634
[25]
N. Setiani, R. Ferdiana, P. I. Santosa, and R. Hartanto. 2019. Literature Review on Test Case Generation Approach. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management (Bali, Indonesia) (ICSIM 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/3305160.3305186
[26]
M. Shahin, M. Ali Babar, and L. Zhu. 2017. Continuous Integration, Delivery and Deployment: A Systematic Review on Approaches, Tools, Challenges and Practices. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 3909–3943. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2685629
[27]
M. Silva, T. Rocha, and M. Perkusich. 2021. O ensino de engenharia de software no nível superior: um mapeamento sistemático. Revista Principia - Divulgação Científica e Tecnológica do IFPB 1 (04 2021). https://doi.org/10.18265/1517-0306a2021id3874
[28]
D. Souza, J. C. Maldonado, and E. F. Barbosa. 2012. Aspectos de Desenvolvimento e Evolução de um Ambiente de Apoio ao Ensino de Programação e Teste de Software. Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação - SBIE) 23, 1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.sbie.2012.%p
[29]
A. B. Sánchez, P. Delgado-Pérez, I. Medina-Bulo, and S. Segura. 2022. Mutation Testing in the Wild: Findings from GitHub. Empirical Softw. Engg. 27, 6 (nov 2022), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10177-8
[30]
P. H. Valle, E. Barbosa, and J. Maldonado. 2015. CS curricula of the most relevant universities in Brazil and abroad: Perspective of software testing education. 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2015.7451649
[31]
S. Vogl, S. Schweikl, G. Fraser, A. Arcuri, J. Campos, and A. Panichella. 2021. EVOSUITE at the SBST 2021 Tool Competition. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 14th International Workshop on Search-Based Software Testing (SBST). IEEE, 28–29.
[32]
Claes W.2014. Guidelines for Snowballing in Systematic Literature Studies and a Replication in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE). 1–10.
[33]
H. A. P. Zanetti, M. A. F. Borges, and I. L. M. Ricarte. 2023. ComFAPOO: Método de Ensino de Programação Orientada à Objetos Baseado em Aprendizagem Significativa e Computação Física. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação 31 (jan. 2023), 01–30. https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2023.2851

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBQS '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality
November 2023
391 pages
ISBN:9798400707865
DOI:10.1145/3629479
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 December 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. EvoSuite
  2. Experimento
  3. Teste de software

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

SBQS '23
SBQS '23: XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality
November 7 - 10, 2023
Bras\'{\i}lia, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 35 of 99 submissions, 35%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 33
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)33
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media