Journal Title : International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science

Author’s Name : R.Vijayakumar, N.Basker

Volume 01 Issue o5  Year 2014  

ISSN no:  2348-3121  

Page no: 192-196

AbstractToday, Software testing is an essential part of successful software development process. The input executes the program and produces the expected output. The outcome of the software product depends on software testing. Manual testing is difficult to produce expected output. The manual testing takes long time to test. The major problem in manual testing is code coverage is not done at regular interval. Many techniques are used to automatically produce inputs in recent years. The test suite generation method is used to produce test suites with high code coverage. We produce a hybrid approach which provides the methodology to improve coverage level of branches in code at regular intervals. The main objective of the proposed system is to increase the coverage level with minimum test suite in a short time. The hybrid approach combines two techniques for improving the accuracy of branch coverage. The test cases are generated by using EVOSUITE tool. Optimization technique is based on coverage level of branch statements.

KeywordsTest case generation, branch coverage, fitness function, Genetic algorithm.


[1] Jon Edvardson, “A survey on Automatic Test Data Generation”.
[2] Mohammad Alshraideh and Leonardo Bottaci, “Search based software test data generation for string data using program specific search operators,” Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. pp. 175-203, (2006).
[3] Andrea Arcuri, “A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Role of Test Sequence Length in Software Testing for Structural Coverage, ” IEEE Trans.Software Eng., Vol.38, No., pp. 497-519, (2012).
[4] Shaukat Ali and Hadi Hemmmati, “A Systematic Review of the application and Empirical Investigation of Search-Based Test Case Generation,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol.36 No. 6, pp. 742-761, (2010).
[5] Gordon Frasor and Andrea Arcuri, “EvoSuite: Automatic Test Suite Generation for Object-Oriented Software”
[6] Wiiem visser, “Test Inout Generation with Java PathFinder,” NASAResearch center Moffett Field.
[7] Mehrshad Khosravini, saadatPour Mozafari and Mohammad Mehdi Ebadzadeh, “Coverage Analysis of Quantum Genetic Algorithm”.
[8] Jan Malburg, “Combining Search-based and Constrained-based Testing,” Saarland university.
[9] A.Arcuru and L.Briand,”A Practical Guide for Using Statistical Tests to Assess Randomized Algorithms in Software Engineering,” Proc. 33rd Int’l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 1 10. (2011).
[10]A.Arcuri, M.Z.Iqbal and Briand,”Random Testing: Theoretical Results and Practtical Implications,” IEEE trans. Software Eng., vol.38 no.2 pp.258-277, (2011).
[11]Arthur Baars, Mark Harman, Youssef Hassoun,kiran lakhotia, “Symbolic Search- Based Technique”.
[12]T.Prem and T.Ravi, “Optimization of Test Cases by Prioritization,” Journal of computer science, pp. 972-980, (2013).
[13]Rupa Kommineni, Vaibhu Ahlawat and anjaneyulu, “Functional Test Suite Minimization using Genetic aligorithm,” infosys labs briefings No.2 Vol.11 (2013).
[14]Lingming Zhang, Tao Xie, Lu Zhang, Hong mei, “Test Generation via Dynamic Symbolic Execution for Mutation Testing”.
[15]Gordon Fraser and Andreas Zeller, “Mutation-Driven Generation of Unit Tests and Oracles,” ISSA ’10. (2010).
[16]L.Baresi, P.L, Lanzi and M.Miraz, “Testful: An Evolutionary Test Approach for Java,” Proc IEEE Int’l Conf. Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 185-194, (2010).
[17]P.McMinn, “Search-Based Software Test Data Generation: A Survey,” Software Testing. Verification and Reliability, Vol.14, No.2 pp. 105-156, (2006).
[18] M. Harrman and P.McMinn. “A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Search Based Testing: Local, Global, and Hybrid Search,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 226-247, (2010).
[19] M.Harman, L.Hu, R.Hierons, J.Wegener, H.Sthamer,“Testability Transformation,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng,. Vol. 30, No.1, pp. 3-16,(2004).

Full Pdf Paper-Click Here