Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1708.08613

ChimpCheck: Property-Based Randomized Test Generation for Interactive Apps

Edmund S. L. Lam·Peilun Zhang·Bor-Yuh Evan Chang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the problem of generating relevant execution traces to test rich interactive applications. Rich interactive applications, such as apps on mobile platforms, are complex stateful and often distributed systems where sufficiently exercising the app with user-interaction (UI) event sequences to expose defects is both hard and time-consuming. In particular, there is a fundamental tension between brute-force random UI exercising tools, which are fully-automated but offer low relevance, and UI test scripts, which are manual but offer high relevance. In this paper, we consider a middle way---enabling a seamless fusion of scripted and randomized UI testing. This fusion is prototyped in a testing tool called ChimpCheck for programming, generating, and executing property-based randomized test cases for Android apps. Our approach realizes this fusion by offering a high-level, embedded domain-specific language for defining custom generators of simulated user-interaction event sequences. What follows is a combinator library built on industrial strength frameworks for property-based testing (ScalaCheck) and Android testing (Android JUnit and Espresso) to implement property-based randomized testing for Android development. Driven by real, reported issues in open source Android apps, we show, through case studies, how ChimpCheck enables expressing effective testing patterns in a compact manner.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Edmund S. L. Lam, Peilun Zhang, Bor-Yuh Evan Chang. 2017-08-29. ChimpCheck: Property-Based Randomized Test Generation for Interactive Apps. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133850.3133853

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗