1 Using a Fault Hierarchy to Improve the Efficiency of DNF Logic Mutation Testing Gary Kaminski and Paul Ammann ICST 2009

2 Logic Mutation Testing Process Mutation testing helps testers find test inputs that detect common faults -yield code coverage -subsume other testing criteria 1)Create program variations (mutants) each containing a single logic fault if (a && b)  if (a || b) 2)For each mutant, find an input distinguishing the original and mutant (weakly killing) - a && b and a || b evaluate to different truth values Focus of this paper is step 1)

3 Motivation Typical mutation system: –includes mutation operators in “Introduction to Software Testing” by Ammann and Offutt –generates excess logic mutants –does not detect certain logic faults Goal: - generate fewer logic mutants - detect more logic faults Assumption: - assume minimal Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) but will relax this in future research

4 Minimal DNF Terms separated by OR, literals by AND ab + a!c vs. a(b + !c) Make each term true and other terms false ab + ac vs. ab + abc Impossible to remove a literal without changing the predicate semantics ab vs. abc + ab!c Green – in minimal DNF Red – not in minimal DNF

5 Multiple Identical Mutants Typical Tool may generate same mutant multiple times Original: ab + bc - (true)b + bc (replace literal a with true) - bb + bc (replace literal a with b) Both mutated predicates reduce to the same logic mutant: ab + bc has been mutated to b

6 Equivalent Mutants Typical Tool may generate equivalent logic mutants Original: ab + b!c + !bc Replacing b with c in term ab yields equivalent mutant: ac + b!c + !bc

7 Unnecessary Mutants Typical Tool may generate mutants unnecessarily Original: ab + bc Negating literal a yields: !ab + bc (killed by TTF or FTF) Replacing a with c yields: cb + bc (killed by TTF only) Mutant produced by negating literal a not needed Killing the mutant where literal a is replaced by literal c guarantees killing the mutant where literal a is negated

8 Selective Mutation Operators Missing Typical Tool lacks highly selective mutation operators A mutation operator inserting a literal into a term is lacking Original: ab + cd Mutant not produced: abc + cd (killed by TTFT) Test point of TTFT guarantees killing many other mutants which thus would not need to be generated

9 Minimal DNF Logic Faults Original: ab + bc Literal Insertion Fault (LIF)* abc + bc Literal Reference Fault (LRF)* ac + bc Literal Omission Fault (LOF) a + bc Detecting LIF, LRF, LOF guarantees detecting other faults *LIF and LRF can result in equivalent mutants

10 TRF/LIF New Mutation Operator Produce a fault where a term is replaced by one or more terms each containing a LIF The resulting fault can only be detected by the point that is the intersection of the set of points that detects each LIF Original: ab + !acde abc + !acde detected by TTFXX abd + !acde detected by TTXFX abe + !acde detected by TTXXF abc + abd + abe + !acde detected only by TTFFF Generate one TRF/LIF mutant instead of three LIF mutants Similar to Subsuming Higher Order Mutants (Jia/Harman)

11 TIF/LOF New Mutation Operator Insert a new term that can only be detected by the point that is the intersection of the set of points that detects 1 or more LOFs Original: ab + cd LOFs: 1) b + cd detected by any false point where a is F and b is T 2) a + cd detected by any false point where a is T and b is F 3) ab + d detected by any false point where c is F and d is T 4) ab + c detected by any false point where c is T and d is F LOFs 1 and 3 can be detected by FTFT (set intersection) LOFs 2 and 4 can be detected by TFTF (set intersection)

12 TIF/LOF New Mutation Operator (Continued) Insert a new term that can only be detected by FTFT in one mutant Insert a new term that can only be detected by TFTF in another mutant Generate two TIF/LOF mutants instead of four LOF mutants Original: ab + cd TIF/LOFs 1) ab + cd + !ab!cd detected only by FTFT 2) ab + cd + a!bc!d detected only by TFTF Similar concept applies for TIF/LRF mutants New mutation approach that produces TRF/LIF, TIF/LRF, TIF/LOF mutants is called TRF-TIF mutation

13 Lau and Yu’s Fault Hierarchy Arrow indicates any point detecting the source fault will detect the destination fault Lacks faults produced by typical mutation operators Lacks faults produced by new highly selective mutation operators Ignores effect of equivalent faults (LIF  LRF and LRF  LOF) - When an equivalent LIF exists for a term, detecting all non-equivalent LIFs for that term does not guarantee detecting all non-equivalent LRFs for literals in that term (moves LRF up so now it must be detected outright) - When an equivalent LIF exists for a term, detecting all corresponding non-equivalent LRFs guarantees detecting all LOFs for literals in that term (adds new arrow) LOF ORF. LRF LNF TNF ENF LIF TOF ORF+

14 Extended Fault Hierarchy Red Box – Mutation Operator does not exist Blue Box – Mutation Operator partially exists Black Box – Mutation Operator exists LOF ORF. LRF LNF TNF LIF TOF LSTF0 ORF.0 ESTF0 ORF+ ORF+0 ENF LSTF1 ORF.1 ORF+1 ESTF1 SVRTOF SVRLOF TRF/LIF TIF/LOF TIF/LRF Green Arrow – Detection may not hold Black Arrow – Detection always holds

15 Mutation Efficiency Ratio Mutation Efficiency Ratio (MER): Faults Detected / Mutants Generated FD assumes an input is found to kill the mutant FD includes equivalent mutants detected automatically FD incorporates all the faults in the extended fault hierarchy (previous slide) Typical Mutation System has at best a MER of 1 generate mutants that correspond to faults in a 1 to 1 manner equivalent mutants not detected automatically makes MER < 1 TRF-TIF has higher MER generates fewer mutants - no equivalent mutants (assuming a complete Boolean space) - never produces multiple identical mutants - never produces a mutant guaranteed to be killed by a test killing some other mutant detects more faults (LIF and LRF)

16 Case Study Analyzed 19 predicates (Weyuker, Chen, Lau, and Yu) in avionics software having 5 to 13 unique literals Built a tool in Java to produce TRF-TIF mutants Compared MER for typical mutation tool and TRF-TIF tool Examined how MER varies based on number of unique literals

17 Case Study Results TRF-TIF tool generated 6% of the mutants a typical mutation tool would Typical tool guarantees* detecting 76% of faults the TRF-TIF tool does *assumes inputs are found that kill all generated non-equivalent mutants For the TRF-TIF tool, MER (FD / MG) increased as the number of unique literals increased TypicalTRF-TIF MER <=122

18 Mutation Efficiency Ratio (FD/MG) vs. Number of Unique Literals TRF-TIF tool - Detects faults typical tool does not (LIF and LRF) - Does not generate multiple identical mutants - Does not generate mutants guaranteed to be killed by a test killing another mutant - Uses highly selective mutation operators not in typical tool

19 Conclusion Altered a logic fault hierarchy to include: new highly selective and typical mutation operators effects of equivalent faults Developed a new TRF-TIF logic mutation approach that: eliminates equivalent mutants eliminates identical mutants detects new fault types generates highly selective mutants Comparison of TRF-TIF approach with typical approach showed improved efficiency with applications for testing software having large predicates