Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) problem is a decision problem for logical first order formulas with respect to combinations of background theories such as: arithmetic, bit-vectors, arrays, and uninterpreted functions. Z3 is a new and efficient SMT Solver freely available from Microsoft Research. It is used in various software verification and analysis applications.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-540-78800-3_24.pdf

Z3: an efficient SMT solver

物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

We present a new symbolic execution tool, KLEE, capable of automatically generating tests that achieve high coverage on a diverse set of complex and environmentally-intensive programs. We used KLEE to thoroughly check all 89 stand-alone programs in the GNU COREUTILS utility suite, which form the core user-level environment installed on millions of Unix systems, and arguably are the single most heavily tested set of open-source programs in existence. KLEE-generated tests achieve high line coverage -- on average over 90% per tool (median: over 94%) -- and significantly beat the coverage of the developers' own hand-written test suite. When we did the same for 75 equivalent tools in the BUSYBOX embedded system suite, results were even better, including 100% coverage on 31 of them.We also used KLEE as a bug finding tool, applying it to 452 applications (over 430K total lines of code), where it found 56 serious bugs, including three in COREUTILS that had been missed for over 15 years. Finally, we used KLEE to crosscheck purportedly identical BUSYBOX and COREUTILS utilities, finding functional correctness errors and a myriad of inconsistencies.

/pdf/klee-unassisted-and-automatic-generation-of-high-coverage-1z0qm4wht1.pdf

KLEE: unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs

What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Pex automatically produces a small test suite with high code coverage for a .NET program. To this end, Pex performs a systematic program analysis (using dynamic symbolic execution, similar to path-bounded model-checking) to determine test inputs for Parameterized Unit Tests. Pex learns the program behavior by monitoring execution traces. Pex uses a constraint solver to produce new test inputs which exercise different program behavior. The result is an automatically generated small test suite which often achieves high code coverage. In one case study, we applied Pex to a core component of the .NET runtime which had already been extensively tested over several years. Pex found errors, including a serious issue.

/pdf/pex-white-box-test-generation-for-net-1kpnw99ssd.pdf

Pex: white box test generation for .NET

We present results for the "Impact Project Focus Area" on the topic of symbolic execution as used in software testing. Symbolic execution is a program analysis technique introduced in the 70s that has received renewed interest in recent years, due to algorithmic advances and increased availability of computational power and constraint solving technology. We review classical symbolic execution and some modern extensions such as generalized symbolic execution and dynamic test generation. We also give a preliminary assessment of the use in academia, research labs, and industry.

/pdf/symbolic-execution-for-software-testing-in-practice-ejobx5bog0.pdf

Symbolic execution for software testing in practice: preliminary assessment

Testing is one of the costliest aspects of commercial software development. Model-based testing is a promising approach addressing these deficits. At Microsoft, model-based testing technology developed by the Foundations of Software Engineering group in Microsoft Research has been used since 2003. The second generation of this tool set, Spec Explorer, deployed in 2004, is now used on a daily basis by Microsoft product groups for testing operating system components, .NET framework components and other areas. This chapter provides a comprehensive survey of the concepts of the tool and their foundations.

/pdf/model-based-testing-of-object-oriented-reactive-systems-with-5fo1mtxtlr.pdf

Model-based testing of object-oriented reactive systems with spec explorer

Parameterized unit tests extend the current industry practice of using closed unit tests defined as parameterless methods. Parameterized unit tests separate two concerns: 1) They specify the external behavior of the involved methods for all test arguments. 2) Test cases can be re-obtained as traditional closed unit tests by instantiating the parameterized unit tests. Symbolic execution and constraint solving can be used to automatically choose a minimal set of inputs that exercise a parameterized unit test with respect to possible code paths of the implementation. In addition, parameterized unit tests can be used as symbolic summaries which allows symbolic execution to scale for arbitrary abstraction levels. We have developed a prototype tool which computes test cases from parameterized unit tests. We report on its first use testing parts of the .NET base class library.

/pdf/parameterized-unit-tests-12yitq4ds2.pdf

Parameterized unit tests

Dynamic symbolic execution is a structural testing technique that systematically explores feasible paths of the program under test by running the program with different test inputs to improve code coverage. To address the space-explosion issue in path exploration, we propose a novel approach called Fitnex, a search strategy that uses state-dependent fitness values (computed through a fitness function) to guide path exploration. The fitness function measures how close an already discovered feasible path is to a particular test target (e.g., covering a not-yet-covered branch). Our new fitness-guided search strategy is integrated with other strategies that are effective for exploration problems where the fitness heuristic fails. We implemented the new approach in Pex, an automated structural testing tool developed at Microsoft Research. We evaluated our new approach by comparing it with existing search strategies. The empirical results show that our approach is effective since it consistently achieves high code coverage faster than existing search strategies.

/pdf/fitness-guided-path-exploration-in-dynamic-symbolic-qrit9t993v.pdf

Nikolai Tillmann

Papers

Pex: white box test generation for .NET

Symbolic execution for software testing in practice: preliminary assessment

Model-based testing of object-oriented reactive systems with spec explorer

Parameterized unit tests

Fitness-guided path exploration in dynamic symbolic execution