skip to main content
10.1145/3524481.3527238acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Testing non-testable programs using association rules

Published:19 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose a novel scalable approach for testing non-testable programs denoted as ARMED testing. The approach leverages efficient Association Rules Mining algorithms to determine relevant implication relations among features and actions observed while the system is in operation. These relations are used as the specification of positive and negative tests, allowing for identifying plausible or suspicious behaviors: for those cases when oracles are inherently unknownable, such as in social testing, ARMED testing introduces the novel concept of testing for plausibility. To illustrate the approach we walk-through an application example.

References

  1. Rakesh Agrawal, Tomasz Imieliński, and Arun Swami. 1993. Mining Association Rules between Sets of Items in Large Databases. SIGMODRec. 22, 2 (June 1993), 207--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rakesh Agrawal, Ramakrishnan Srikant, et al. 1994. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In Proc. 20th int. conf. very large data bases, VLDB, Vol. 1215. Citeseer, 487--499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. John Ahlgren, Maria Eugenia Berezin, Kinga Bojarczuk, Elena Dulskyte, Inna Dvortsova, Johann George, Natalija Gucevska, Mark Harman, Ralf Laemmel, Erik Meijer, et al. 2020. WES: Agent-based user interaction simulation on real infrastructure. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops. 276--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. John Ahlgren, Maria Eugenia Berezin, Kinga Bojarczuk, Elena Dulskyte, Inna Dvortsova, Johann George, Natalija Gucevska, Mark Harman, Maria Lomeli, Erik Meijer, et al. 2021. Testing Web Enabled Simulation at Scale Using Metamorphic Testing. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP). IEEE, 140--149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. John Ahlgren, Kinga Bojarczuk, Sophia Drossopoulou, Inna Dvortsova, Johann George, Natalija Gucevska, Mark Harman, Maria Lomeli, Simon M. M. Lucas, Erik Meijer, Steve Omohundro, Rubmary Rojas, Silvia Sapora, and Norm Zhou. 2021. Facebook's Cyber-Cyber and Cyber-Physical Digital Twins. In Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (Trondheim, Norway) (EASE 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Earl T. Barr, Mark Harman, Phil McMinn, Muzammil Shahbaz, and Shin Yoo. 2015. The Oracle Problem in Software Testing: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41, 5 (May 2015), 507--525. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Pan Bian et al. 2018. Nar-miner: Discovering negative association rules from code for bug detection. In ESEC/FSE. 411--422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Tsong Yueh Chen et al. 2018. Metamorphic Testing: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 1, Article 4 (Jan. 2018), 27 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Junhua Ding, Dongmei Zhang, and Xin-Hua Hu. 2016. An application of metamorphic testing for testing scientific software. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Metamorphic Testing. 37--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael D Ernst, Jeff H Perkins, Philip J Guo, Stephen McCamant, Carlos Pacheco, Matthew S Tschantz, and Chen Xiao. 2007. The Daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Science of computer programming 69, 1-3 (2007), 35--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Philippe Fournier-Viger, Jerry Chun-Wei Lin, Bay Vo, Tin Chi Truong, Ji Zhang, and Hoai Bac Le. 2017. A survey of itemset mining. WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 7, 4 (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jiawei Han, Jian Pei, and Yiwen Yin. 2000. Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation. ACM sigmod record 29, 2 (2000), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim Herzig and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2015. Empirically detecting false test alarms using association rules. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. IEEE, 39--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Benjamin Livshits and Thomas Zimmermann. 2005. Dynamine: finding common error patterns by mining software revision histories. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30, 5 (2005), 296--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. José María Luna, Philippe Fournier-Viger, and Sebastian Ventura. 2019. Frequent itemset mining: A 25 years review. WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 9, 6 (2019). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Manishankar Mandal, Chanchal K Roy, and Kevin A Schneider. 2014. Automatic ranking of clones for refactoring through mining association rules. In 2014 Software Evolution Week-IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE). IEEE, 114--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Bhabesh Nath, D. K. Bhattacharyya, and Ashish Ghosh. 2013. Incremental association rule mining: a survey. WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 3, 3 (2013), 157--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Krishna Patel and Robert M. Hierons. 2018. A Mapping Study on Testing Non-Testable Systems. Software Quality Journal 26, 4 (Dec. 2018), 1373--1413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro. 1991. Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. Knowledge discovery in databases (1991), 229--238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sebastiaan Rothmann and Elize P Coetzer. 2003. The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 29, 1 (2003), 68--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Ashok Savasere et al. 1995. An efficient algorithm for mining association rules in large databases. Technical Report. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. David J Stillwell and Michal Kosinski. 2007. myPersonality database. https://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/productsservices/mypersonality Accessed on 09/10/2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hannu Toivonen. 1996. Sampling Large Databases for Association Rules. In Proceedings of the 22th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB '96). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 134--145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Adriano Veloso, Wagner Meira Jr., Márcio de Carvalho, Bruno Pôssas, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, and Mohammed Javeed Zaki. 2002. Mining Frequent Itemsets in Evolving Databases. In Proceedings of the Second SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Arlington, VA, USA, April 11-13, 2002, Robert L. Grossman, Jiawei Han, Vipin Kumar, Heikki Mannila, and Rajeev Motwani (Eds.). SIAM, 494--510. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Elaine J Weyuker. 1982. On testing non-testable programs. Comput. J. 25, 4 (1982), 465--470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Xiaoyuan Xie, Joshua WK Ho, Christian Murphy, Gail Kaiser, Baowen Xu, and Tsong Yueh Chen. 2011. Testing and validating machine learning classifiers by metamorphic testing. Journal of Systems and Software 84, 4 (2011), 544--558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Mohammed Javeed Zaki. 2000. Scalable algorithms for association mining. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 12, 3 (2000), 372--390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Wujie Zheng, Hao Ma, Michael R. Lyu, Tao Xie, and Irwin King. 2011. Mining Test Oracles of Web Search Engines. In Proceedings of the 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE '11). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 408--411. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    AST '22: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automation of Software Test
    May 2022
    180 pages
    ISBN:9781450392860
    DOI:10.1145/3524481

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 19 July 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Upcoming Conference

    ICSE 2025
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)45
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader