Search for: All records

Regression test selection (RTS) speeds up regression testing by only re-running tests that might be affected by code changes. Ideal RTS safely selects all affected tests and precisely selects only affected tests. But, aiming for this ideal is often slower than re-running all tests. So, recent RTS techniques use program analysis to trade precision for speed, i.e., lower regression testing time, or even use machine learning to trade safety for speed. We seek to make recent analysis-based RTS techniques more precise, to further speed up regression testing. Independent studies suggest that these techniques reached a “performance wall” in the speed-ups that they provide. We manually inspect code changes to discover those that do not require re-running tests that are only affected by such changes. We categorize 29 kinds of changes that we found from five projects into 13 findings, 11 of which are semantics-modifying. We enhance two RTS techniques—Ekstazi and STARTS—to reason about our findings. Using 1,150 versions of 23 projects, we evaluate the impact on safety and precision of leveraging such changes. We also evaluate if our findings from a few projects can speed up regression testing in other projects. The results show that our enhancements are effective and they can generalize. On average, they result in selecting 41.7% and 31.8% fewer tests, and take 33.7% and 28.7% less time than Ekstazi and STARTS, respectively, with no loss in safety. 

We recently proposed inline tests for validating individual program statements; they allow developers to provide test inputs, expected outputs, and test oracles immediately after a target statement. But, existing code can have many target statements. So, automatic generation of inline tests is an important next step towards increasing their adoption. We propose ExLi, the first technique for automatically generating inline tests. ExLi extracts inline tests from unit tests; it first records all variable values at a target statement while executing unit tests. Then, ExLi uses those values as test inputs and test oracles in an initial set of generated inline tests. Target statements that are executed many times could have redundant initial inline tests. So, ExLi uses a novel coverage-then-mutants based reduction process to remove redundant inline tests. We implement ExLi for Java and use it to generate inline tests for 718 target statements in 31 open-source programs. ExLi reduces 17,273 initially generated inline tests to 905 inline tests. The final set of generated inline tests kills up to 25.1% more mutants on target statements than developer written and automatically generated unit tests. That is, ExLi generates inline tests that can improve the fault-detection capability of the test suites from which they are extracted. 

We present pytest-inline, the first inline testing framework for Python. We recently proposed inline tests to make it easier to test individual program statements. But, there is no framework-level support for developers to write inline tests in Python. To fill this gap, we design and implement pytest-inline as a plugin for pytest, the most popular Python testing framework. Using pytest-inline, a developer can write an inline test by assigning test inputs to variables in a target statement and specifying the expected test output. Then, pytest-inline runs each inline test and fails if the target statement’s output does not match the expected output. In this paper, we describe our design of pytestinline, the testing features that it provides, and the intended use cases. Our evaluation on inline tests that we wrote for 80 target statements from 31 open-source Python projects shows that using pytest-inline incurs negligible overhead, at 0.012x. pytest-inline is integrated into the pytest-dev organization, and a video demo is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZgiAxR_uJg. 

Automatically fixing software bugs is a challenging task. While recent work showed that natural language context is useful in guiding bug-fixing models, the approach required prompting developers to provide this context, which was simulated through commit messages written after the bug-fixing code changes were made. We instead propose using bug report discussions, which are available before the task is performed and are also naturally occurring, avoiding the need for any additional information from developers. For this, we augment standard bug-fixing datasets with bug report discussions. Using these newly compiled datasets, we demonstrate that various forms of natural language context derived from such discussions can aid bug-fixing, even leading to improved performance over using commit messages corresponding to the oracle bug-fixing commits.