Correlating automatic static analysis and mutation testing: towards incremental strategies

• Published in: Journal of software engineering research and development Vol. 4; no. 1; p. 1
• Main Authors: Araújo, Cláudio A., Delamaro, Marcio E., Maldonado, José C., Vincenzi, Auri M. R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 03.11.2016; Sociedade Brasileira de Computação
• Subjects: Compilers; Computer Science; Information Systems Applications (incl.Internet); Interpreters; Programming Languages; SBES 2015 (29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering); Software Engineering; Software Engineering/Programming and Operating Systems; Software testing; Static analyzer evaluation; Warnings; Mutation testing; Static analysis; Mutants
• ISSN: 2195-1721; 2195-1721
• DOI: 10.1186/s40411-016-0031-8

Background Traditionally, mutation testing is used as test set generation and/or test evaluation criteria once it is considered a good fault model. This paper uses mutation testing for evaluating an automated static analyzer. Since static analyzers, in general, report a substantial number of false positive warnings, the intention of this study is to define a prioritization approach of static warnings based on their correspondence with mutations. On the other hand, knowing that Mutation Test has a high application cost, another possibility is to try to identify mutations of some specific mutation operators, which an automatic static analyzer is not adequate to detect. Therefore, this information can be used to prioritize the order of incrementally applying mutation operators considering, firstly, those with no correspondence with static warnings. In both cases, contributing to the establishment of incremental strategies on using automatic static analysis or mutation testing or even a combination of them. Methods We used mutation operators as a fault model to evaluate the direct correspondence between mutations and static warnings. The main advantage of using mutation operators is that they generate a large number of programs containing faults of different types, which can be used to decide the ones most probable to be detected by static analyzers. Results We provide evidences on the correspondence between mutations and some types of static warnings. The results obtained for a set of 19 open-source programs indicate that: 1) static warnings may be prioritized based on their correspondence level with mutations; 2) specific set of mutation operators and their mutations may be prioritized based on their correspondence level with warnings. Conclusion It is possible to provide an incremental testing strategy aiming at reducing the cost of both static analysis and mutation testing using the correspondence information between these activities/artifacts.