You are required to read and agree to the below before accessing a full-text version of an article in the IDE article repository.

The full-text document you are about to access is subject to national and international copyright laws. In most cases (but not necessarily all) the consequence is that personal use is allowed given that the copyright owner is duly acknowledged and respected. All other use (typically) require an explicit permission (often in writing) by the copyright owner.

For the reports in this repository we specifically note that

  • the use of articles under IEEE copyright is governed by the IEEE copyright policy (available at http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/copyrightpolicy.html)
  • the use of articles under ACM copyright is governed by the ACM copyright policy (available at http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/)
  • technical reports and other articles issued by M‰lardalen University is free for personal use. For other use, the explicit consent of the authors is required
  • in other cases, please contact the copyright owner for detailed information

By accepting I agree to acknowledge and respect the rights of the copyright owner of the document I am about to access.

If you are in doubt, feel free to contact webmaster@ide.mdh.se

Human-based Test Design versus Automated Test Generation: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Fulltext:


Authors:

Ted Kurmaku , Eduard Paul Enoiu, Musa Kumrija

Publication Type:

Conference/Workshop Paper

Venue:

15th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference


Abstract

Automated test generation has been proposed to allow test cases to be created with less effort. While much progress has been made, it remains a challenge to automatically generate strong as well as small test suites that are also relevant to engineers. However, how these automated test generation approaches compare to or complement manually written test cases is still an open research question. In the light of the potential benefits of automated test generation in practice, its long history, and the apparent lack of summative evidence supporting its use, the present study aims to systematically review the current body of peer-reviewed publications comparing automated test generation and manual test design performed by humans.We conducted a literature review and meta-analysis to collect data comparing manually written tests with automatically generated ones regarding test efficiency and effectiveness. The overall results of the literature review suggest that automated test generation outperforms manual testing in terms of testing time, the number of tests created and the code coverage achieved. Nevertheless, most of the studies report that manually written tests detect more faults (both injected and naturally occurring ones), are more readable, and detect more specific bugs than those created using automated test generation. Our results suggest that just a few studies report specific statistics (e.g., effect sizes) that can be used in a proper meta-analysis, and therefore, results are inconclusive when comparing automated test generation and manual testing due to the lack of sufficient statistical data and power. Nevertheless, our meta-analysis results suggest that manual and automated test generation are clearly outperforming random testing for all metrics considered.

Bibtex

@inproceedings{Kurmaku6349,
author = {Ted Kurmaku and Eduard Paul Enoiu and Musa Kumrija},
title = {Human-based Test Design versus Automated Test Generation: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis},
month = {February},
year = {2022},
booktitle = {15th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference},
url = {http://www.es.mdh.se/publications/6349-}
}