More Like this

1. The Call of Science

   https://doi.org/10.1511/2024.112.2.92  

   Pennock, Robert ( March 2024 , American Scientist)
2. Ghost calls from operational 4G call systems: IMS vulnerability, call DoS attack, and countermeasure

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3372224.3380885  

   Lu, Yu-Han ; Li, Chi-Yu ; Li, Yao-Yu ; Hsiao, Sandy Hsin-Yu ; Xie, Tian ; Tu, Guan-Hua ; Chen, Wei-Xun ( April 2020 , MobiCom '20: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking)
3. CompEd 2023 Call for Papers

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3607479.3607483  

   Luxton-Reilly, Andrew ; Craig, Michelle ; Choppella, Venkatesh ; Phatak, BD ( April 2023 , ACM SIGCSE Bulletin)

   A call for papers and a description of the planning for the ACM CompEd 2023 conference to be held in Hyderabad, India in December 2023. 

   more » « less
4. Serialization-aware call graph construction

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3460946.3464319  

   Santos, Joanna C. ; Jones, Reese A. ; Ashiogwu, Chinomso ; Mirakhorli, Mehdi ( June 2021 , Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on the State Of the Art in Program Analysis)
5. To call, or not to call: contrasting direct and indirect branch coverage in test generation

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3194718.3194719  

   Gay, Gregory ( January 2018 , SBST '18 Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Search-Based Software Testing)

   While adequacy criteria offer an end-point for testing, they do not mandate how targets are covered. Branch Coverage may be attained through direct calls to methods, or through indirect calls between methods. Automated generation is biased towards the rapid gains offered by indirect coverage. Therefore, even with the same end-goal, humans and automation produce very different tests. Direct coverage may yield tests that are more understandable, and that detect faults missed by traditional approaches. However, the added burden for the generation framework may result in lower coverage and faults that emerge through method interactions may be missed. To compare the two approaches, we have generated test suites for both, judging efficacy against real faults. We have found that requiring direct coverage results in lower achieved coverage and likelihood of fault detection. However, both forms of Branch Coverage cover code and detect faults that the other does not. By isolating methods, Direct Branch Coverage is less constrained in the choice of input. However, traditional Branch Coverage is able to leverage method interactions to discover faults. Ultimately, both are situationally applicable within the context of a broader testing strategy. 

   more » « less