Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2507.20814

Client--Library Compatibility Testing with API Interaction Snapshots

Abstract

Modern software development heavily relies on third-party libraries to speed up development and enhance quality. As libraries evolve, they may break the tacit contract established with their clients by introducing behavioral breaking changes (BBCs) that alter run-time behavior and silently break client applications without being detected at compile time. Traditional regression tests on the client side often fail to detect such BBCs, either due to limited library coverage or weak assertions that do not sufficiently exercise the library's expected behavior. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach to client--library compatibility testing that leverages existing client tests in a novel way. Instead of relying on developer-written assertions, we propose recording the actual interactions at the API boundary during the execution of client tests (protocol, input and output values, exceptions, etc.). These sequences of API interactions are stored as snapshots which capture the exact contract expected by a client at a specific point in time. As the library evolves, we compare the original and new snapshots to identify perturbations in the contract, flag potential BBCs, and notify clients. We implement this technique in our prototype tool Gilesi, a Java framework that automatically instruments library APIs, records snapshots, and compares them. Through a preliminary case study on several client--library pairs with artificially seeded BBCs, we show that Gilesi reliably detects BBCs missed by client test suites.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gustave Monce, Thomas Degueule, Jean-Rémy Falleri, Romain Robbes. 2025-07-28. Client--Library Compatibility Testing with API Interaction Snapshots. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20814

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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