Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1705.04669

KompicsTesting - Unit Testing Event Streams

Abstract

In this paper we present KompicsTesting, a framework for unit testing components in the Kompics component model. Components in Kompics are event-driven entities which communicate asynchronously solely by message passing. Similar to actors in the actor model, they do not share their internal state in message-passing, making them less prone to errors, compared to other models of concurrency using shared state. However, they are neither immune to simpler logical and specification errors nor errors such as dataraces that stem from nondeterminism. As a result, there exists a need for tools that enable rapid and iterative development and testing of message passing components in general, in a manner similar to the xUnit frameworks for functions and modular segments code. These frameworks work in an imperative manner, ill suited for testing message-passing components given that the behavior of such components are encoded in the streams of messages that they send and receive. In this work, we present a theoretical framework for describing and verifying the behavior of message-passing components, independent of the model and framework implementation, in a manner similar to describing a stream of characters using regular expressions. We show how this approach can be used to perform both black box and white box testing of components and illustrate its feasibility through the design and implementation a prototype based on this approach, KompicsTesting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ifeanyi W. Ubah, Lars Kroll, Alexandru A. Ormenisan, Seif Haridi. 2017-05-12. KompicsTesting - Unit Testing Event Streams. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04669

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Combining Type Inference and Automated Unit Test Generation for Python

Automated unit test generation is an established research field that has so far focused on statically-typed programming languages. The lack of type information in dynamically-typed programming languages, such as Python, inhibits test generators, which heavily rely on information about parameter and return types of functions to select suitable arguments when constructing test cases. Since automated test generators inherently rely on frequent execution of candidate tests, we make use of these frequent executions to address this problem by introducing type tracing, which extracts type-related information during execution and gradually refines the available type information. We implement type tracing as an extension of the Pynguin test-generation framework for Python, allowing it (i) to infer parameter types by observing how parameters are used during runtime, (ii) to record the types of values that function calls return, and (iii) to use this type information to increase code coverage. The approach leads to up to 87.8 % more branch coverage, improved mutation scores, and to type information of similar quality to that produced by other state-of-the-art type-inference tools.

cs.SE

Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in software engineering (SE) research and practice, yet their non-determinism, opaque training data, and rapidly evolving models threaten the reproducibility and replicability of empirical studies. We address this challenge through a collaborative effort of 22 researchers, presenting a taxonomy of seven study types that organizes how LLMs are used in SE research, together with eight guidelines for designing and reporting such studies. Each guideline distinguishes requirements (must) from recommendations (should) and is contextualized by the study types it applies to. Our guidelines recommend that researchers: (1) declare LLM usage and role; (2) report model versions, configurations, and customizations; (3) document the system and prompt design beyond the model; (4) report session traces, i.e., interaction logs and runtime traces; (5) use suitable baselines, benchmarks, and metrics; (6) include an open LLM as a baseline; (7) validate LLM outputs against human judgment; and (8) articulate limitations and mitigations. We complement the guidelines with an applicability matrix mapping guidelines to study types and a reporting checklist for authors and reviewers. We maintain the study types and guidelines online as a living resource for the community to use and shape (llm-guidelines$.$org).

cs.SE

MigrateLib: a tool for end-to-end Python library migration

Library migration is the process of replacing a library with a similar one in a software project. Manual library migration is time consuming and error prone, as it requires developers to understand the Application Programming Interfaces (API) of both libraries, map equivalent APIs, and perform the necessary code transformations. Due to the difficulty of the library migration process, most of the existing automated techniques and tooling stop at the API mapping stage or support a limited set of libraries and code transformations. In this paper, we develop an end-to-end solution that can automatically migrate code between any arbitrary pair of Python libraries that provide similar functionality. Due to the promising capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation and transformation, we use LLMs as the primary engine for migration. Before building the tool, we first study the capabilities of LLMs for library migration on a benchmark of 321 real-world library migrations. We find that LLMs can effectively perform library migration, but some post-processing steps can further improve the performance. Based on this, we develop MigrateLib, a command line application that combines the power of LLMs, static analysis, and dynamic analysis to provide accurate library migration. We evaluate MigrateLib on 717 real-world Python applications that are not from our benchmark. We find that MigrateLib can migrate 32% of the migrations with complete correctness. Of the remaining migrations, only 14% of the migration-related changes are left for developers to fix for more than half of the projects.

cs.SE