1. of 18 Is Bytecode Instrumentation as Good as Source Instrumentation? An Empirical Study with Industrial Tools Nan Li, Xin Meng, Jeff Offutt, and Lin Deng Software Engineering George Mason University Fairfax, VA USA www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/offutt@gmu.edu

2. of 18 Software Testing The main purpose of testing is to discover failures early –Failures found during system testing cost 10 times as much as if found during unit testing –Failures found after deployment cost 50 times as much Repairing faults early saves money –Fixing faults after release is like having surgery –Fixing faults during development is having a healthy lifestyle Overall goals of test design : 1.Few tests 2.Efficient process 3.Effective tests ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng2 Health care web application ?

3. of 18 Test Coverage Criteria ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng3 Test Requirements : Specific things that must be satisfied or covered during testing Test Criterion : A collection of rules and a process that define test requirements Coverage criteria balance the three test design goals

4. of 18 Code Coverage Criteria Statement Coverage (SC) : Every statement in the software must be covered Branch Coverage (BC) : Every branch in the software must be covered Clause Coverage (CC) : Every clause in every predicate must evaluate to true and false ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng4 1. if (a && b) 2. print (“yes”); 3. print (“Finished”); SC : [1, 2, 3] BC : [1, 2, 3] (a=T, b=T) [1, 3] (a=F, b=F) CC : a=T, a=F, b=T, b=F

5. of 18 Criteria Subsumption If branch coverage is satisfied, then all statements are guaranteed to be reached –That is, BC subsumes SC Clause coverage does not subsume either branch coverage or statement coverage For the previous example, clause coverage can be satisfied with two tests Predicate is true for both, both take the path [1, 3] ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng5 (a=T, b=F) & (a=F, b=T) This is why nobody wants to use CC

6. of 18 M easuring C overage C riteria Tools measure coverage by instrumenting the software ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng6 if (a > b || b == 0) { bc.trueReached (1); return true; } else { bc.falseReached (1); return false; } All defs and theory are based on source code –SCI : Source Code Instrumentation Some tools instrument bytecode –Easier to build tools –BCI : ByteCode Instrumentation This leaves significant questions –Does BCI preserve the definitions and theory behind coverage ? –Does BCI == SCI ?? What do tools do?

7. of 18 3 Research Questions ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng7 RQ 1 : RQ 1 :. What language control structures do the tools instrument ? RQ 2 : RQ 2 :. Do the tools reflect the theory that branch coverage subsumes statement coverage ? RQ 3 : RQ 3 :. Is bytecode instrumented branch coverage the same as source code instrumented branch coverage ?

8. of 18 Benefits of This Research 1.Testers need consistency from tools 2.Testers need to understand what tool results mean 3.Tool builders need to know how to build tools ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng8

9. of 18 Analyzing Instrumentation Methods (RQ1 & RQ2) Three tools compared –One used bytecode instrumentation –Two used source code instrumentation Studied open source software (FindBugs) –19 classes –105 methods ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng9

10. of 18 Tools Considered 31 tools considered (Table I in paper) Access :19 free, 12 charge for use –9 had free student trials (AgitarOne, Jtest, VectorCAST did not) Active : 13 had websites updated in past four years Branch Coverage : Six support, 22 do not, three unclear Method of Instrumentation –BCI : 14 –SCI : 5 –Both : 1 –Did not say : 11 ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng10 BCI : EclEmma SCI : CloverCodeCover

11. of 18 Control Structures Instrumented (RQ1) Determined by comparing tool results with hand analysis All tools had the same omission : –If a method had no branches, the tool reported 0% coverage –This is as if I don’t ask for a glass of wine, and call my waiter a failure for not bringing it Control structures instrumented (Table II in paper) –EclEmma (BCI) : if-else, while, do-while, for, enhanced for, assignments expressions, ternary, return, assert, try, catch, finally, switch ( all but try-catch ) –CodeCover (SCI) : if-else, while, do-while, for, try, catch, finally –Clover (SCI) : if-else, while, do-while, for, ternery, assert, try, catch, finally ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng11

12. of 18 Does BC Subsume SC ? (RQ2) Control structures not instrumented means some statements are not covered, even if BC is fully satisfied Reporting 0% coverage on methods with no branches result in statements not being covered ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng12 Thus, none of the tools implement branch coverage correctly

13. of 18 Does BCI == SCI ? (RQ3) We compared methods that only used control structures both tools instrumented Compared tools pair-wise : –CodeCover (SCI) vs EclEmma (BCI) –Clover (SCI) vs EclEmma (BCI) ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng13 BranchesCovered EclEmma17055.29% CodeCover13061.53% BranchesCovered EclEmma39454.56% Clover34256.14% Only if-else in common EclEmma skips dead code Discovered a fault in CodeCover while, do-while, for, assert, try, catch, finally, ternary

14. of 18 Method Comparison BCI (EclEmma) compared with SCI (CodeCover & Clover) –Same score on 49 methods –BCI lower on 11 methods –BCI higher on 4 methods Because of the way Java is translated to bytecode, BCI requires each clause in each predicate to be true and false –Thus it measures clause coverage (CC), not branch coverage (BC) –Most predicates have only one clause CC is harder to satisfy than BC with multiple clauses –So BCI scores are usually the same or lower –Exceptions occur when some predicates are not covered ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng14

15. of 18 Threats to Validity As with most software research, we do not know whether our subjects are representative Results are based on three tools Some of the tools could have faults that affected the results –We identified one fault We performed hand analysis of branch measurement to verify tools’ approach –Used two raters ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng15

16. of 18 Four Findings ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng16 1. None of the tools evaluate all Java branches 2. None of the tools implement branch coverage correctly Branch coverage should subsume statement coverage, but does not Branch coverage should subsume statement coverage, but does not 3. Instrumenting bytecode measures clause coverage, not branch coverage 4. Bytecode instrumentation is not valid for measuring branch coverage

17. of 18 Future Directions We would like to gather more information along several lines 1.We focused on branch coverage, and it would be good to perform a similar study for statement coverage More tools are available for SC 2.The study could be extended to more tools, however some tools are expensive to access 3.A major extension would be to measure whether either instrumentation technique helps testers design better tests 4.Can we modify branch coverage instrumentation to measure branch coverage correctly? ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng17

18. of 18Contact ISSRE 2013© Li, Meng, Offutt, and Deng18 Jeff Offutt offutt@gmu.eduhttp://cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/