Sebastian Elbaum

Bio: Sebastian Elbaum is an academic researcher from University of Virginia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Test suite & Regression testing. The author has an hindex of 44, co-authored 199 publications receiving 8704 citations. Previous affiliations of Sebastian Elbaum include Lincoln University (Pennsylvania) & University of Idaho.

Supporting Controlled Experimentation with Testing Techniques: An Infrastructure and its Potential Impact

Abstract: Where the creation, understanding, and assessment of software testing and regression testing techniques are concerned, controlled experimentation is an indispensable research methodology. Obtaining the infrastructure necessary to support such experimentation, however, is difficult and expensive. As a result, progress in experimentation with testing techniques has been slow, and empirical data on the costs and effectiveness of techniques remains relatively scarce. To help address this problem, we have been designing and constructing infrastructure to support controlled experimentation with testing and regression testing techniques. This paper reports on the challenges faced by researchers experimenting with testing techniques, including those that inform the design of our infrastructure. The paper then describes the infrastructure that we are creating in response to these challenges, and that we are now making available to other researchers, and discusses the impact that this infrastructure has had and can be expected to have.

Test case prioritization: a family of empirical studies

Abstract: To reduce the cost of regression testing, software testers may prioritize their test cases so that those which are more important, by some measure, are run earlier in the regression testing process. One potential goal of such prioritization is to increase a test suite's rate of fault detection. Previous work reported results of studies that showed that prioritization techniques can significantly improve rate of fault detection. Those studies, however, raised several additional questions: 1) Can prioritization techniques be effective when targeted at specific modified versions; 2) what trade-offs exist between fine granularity and coarse granularity prioritization techniques; 3) can the incorporation of measures of fault proneness into prioritization techniques improve their effectiveness? To address these questions, we have performed several new studies in which we empirically compared prioritization techniques using both controlled experiments and case studies.

Prioritizing test cases for regression testing

Abstract: Test case prioritization techniques schedule test cases in an order that increases their effectiveness in meeting some performance goal. One performance goal, rate of fault detection, is a measure of how quickly faults are detected within the testing process; an improved rate of fault detection can provide faster feedback on the system under test, and let software engineers begin locating and correcting faults earlier than might otherwise be possible. In previous work, we reported the results of studies that showed that prioritization techniques can significantly improve rate of fault detection. Those studies, however, raised several additional questions: (1) can prioritization techniques be effective when aimed at specific modified versions; (2) what tradeoffs exist between fine granularity and coarse granularity prioritization techniques; (3) can the incorporation of measures of fault proneness into prioritization techniques improve their effectiveness? This paper reports the results of new experiments addressing these questions.

Incorporating varying test costs and fault severities into test case prioritization

Abstract: Test case prioritization techniques schedule test cases for regression testing in an order that increases their ability to meet some performance goal. One performance goal, rate of fault detection, measures how quickly faults are detected within the testing process. In previous work (S. Elbaum et al., 2000; G. Rothermel et al., 1999), we provided a metric, APFD, for measuring rate of fault detection, and techniques for prioritizing test cases to improve APFD, and reported the results of experiments using those techniques. This metric and these techniques, however, applied only in cases in which test costs and fault severity are uniform. We present a new metric for assessing the rate of fault detection of prioritized test cases that incorporates varying test case and fault costs. We present the results of a case study illustrating the application of the metric. This study raises several practical questions that might arise in applying test case prioritization; we discuss how practitioners could go about answering these questions.

Techniques for improving regression testing in continuous integration development environments

Abstract: In continuous integration development environments, software engineers frequently integrate new or changed code with the mainline codebase. This can reduce the amount of code rework that is needed as systems evolve and speed up development time. While continuous integration processes traditionally require that extensive testing be performed following the actual submission of code to the codebase, it is also important to ensure that enough testing is performed prior to code submission to avoid breaking builds and delaying the fast feedback that makes continuous integration desirable. In this work, we present algorithms that make continuous integration processes more cost-effective. In an initial pre-submit phase of testing, developers specify modules to be tested, and we use regression test selection techniques to select a subset of the test suites for those modules that render that phase more cost-effective. In a subsequent post-submit phase of testing, where dependent modules as well as changed modules are tested, we use test case prioritization techniques to ensure that failures are reported more quickly. In both cases, the techniques we utilize are novel, involving algorithms that are relatively inexpensive and do not rely on code coverage information -- two requirements for conducting testing cost-effectively in this context. To evaluate our approach, we conducted an empirical study on a large data set from Google that we make publicly available. The results of our study show that our selection and prioritization techniques can each lead to cost-effectiveness improvements in the continuous integration process.

The Design and Analysis of Experiments

Abstract: THE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTS. By Oscar Kempthorne. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1952. 631 pp. $8.50. This book by a teacher of statistics (as well as a consultant for \"experimenters\") is a comprehensive study of the philosophical background for the statistical design of experiment. It is necessary to have some facility with algebraic notation and manipulation to be able to use the volume intelligently. The problems are presented from the theoretical point of view, without such practical examples as would be helpful for those not acquainted with mathematics. The mathematical justification for the techniques is given. As a somewhat advanced treatment of the design and analysis of experiments, this volume will be interesting and helpful for many who approach statistics theoretically as well as practically. With emphasis on the \"why,\" and with description given broadly, the author relates the subject matter to the general theory of statistics and to the general problem of experimental inference. MARGARET J. ROBERTSON

Test Driven Development: By Example

Abstract: 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.

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Abstract: ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Model Driven Engineering

Abstract: The Object Management Group's (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) strategy envisages a world where models play a more direct role in software production, being amenable to manipulation and transformation by machine. Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is wider in scope than MDA. MDE combines process and analysis with architecture. This article sets out a framework for model driven engineering, which can be used as a point of reference for activity in this area. It proposes an organisation of the modelling 'space' and how to locate models in that space. It discusses different kinds of mappings between models. It explains why process and architecture are tightly connected. It discusses the importance and nature of tools. It identifies the need for defining families of languages and transformations, and for developing techniques for generating/configuring tools from such definitions. It concludes with a call to align metamodelling with formal language engineering techniques.