Regression Testing in Developer Environment for Absence of Code Coverage

M. Thillaikarasi, K. Seetharaman

Computer Science Wing, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, India.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, India.

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2014.78057                

Abstract

The techniques of test case prioritization schedule the execution order of test cases to attain respective target, such as enhanced level of forecasting the fault. The requirement of the prioritization can be viewed as the en-route for deriving an order of relation on a given set of test cases which results from regression testing. Alteration of programs between the versions can cause more test cases which may respond differently to following versions of software. In this, a fixed approach to prioritizing test cases avoids the preceding drawbacks. The JUnit test case prioritization techniques operating in the absence of coverage information, differs from existing dynamic coverage-based test case prioritization techniques. Further, the prioritization test cases relying on coverage information were projected from fixed structures relatively other than gathered instrumentation and execution.

Keywords

Software Testing, Regression Testing, Test Case, Prioritization, JUnit, Call Graph

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Do, H., Rothermel, G. and Kinneer, A. (2006) Prioritizing JUnit Test Cases: An Empirical Assessment and Cost-Benefits Analysis. Springer Science Empire Software Engineering, 11, 33-70.
[2]	Do, H., Rothermel, G. and Kinner, A. (2006) Empirical Studies of Test Cases Prioritization in a JUnit Testing Environment. International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, 11, 33-70.
[3]	Rothermel, G., Untch, R.H., Chu, C. and Harrold, M.J. (2001) Prioritizing Test Cases for Regression Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27, 929-948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/32.962562
[4]	Zhang, L.M., Zhou, J., Hao, D., Zhang, L. and Mei, H. (2009) Jtop: Managing JUnit Test Cases in Absence of Coverage Information. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 677-679.
[5]	Chittimalli, P.K. and Harrold, M.J. (2007) Re-Computing Coverage Information to Assist Regression Testing. IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Paris, 2-5 October 2007, 164-173.
[6]	Jeffrey, D. and Gupta, N. (2007) Improving Fault Detection Capability by Selectively Retaining Test Cases during a Test Suite Reduction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33, 108-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2007.18
[7]	Jones, J.A. and Harrold, M.J. (2003) Test-Suite Reduction and Prioritization for Modified Condition/Decision Coverage. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29, 195-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1183927
[8]	Li, Z., Harman, M. and Herons, R.M. (2007) Search Algorithms for Regression Test Case Prioritization. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33, 225-237.
[9]	Elbaum, S., Malishevsky, A.G. and Rothermel, G. (2002) Test Case Prioritization: A Family of Empirical Studies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28, 159-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/32.988497
[10]	Kim, M., Kim, Y. and Kim, H. (2011) A Comparative Study of Software Model Checkers as Unit Testing Tools: An Industrial Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37, 146-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2010.68
[11]	Zielińska, A. (2012) Framework for Extensible Application Testing. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 5, 351-363.
[12]	Shahid, M., Ibrahim, S. and Naz’ri Mahrin, M. (2012) Code Coverage Information to Support Regression Testing.
[13]	Segura, S., Hierons, R.M., Benavides, D. and Ruiz-Cortés, A. (2011) Mutation Testing on an Object-Oriented Framework: An Experience Report.