The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MobiGUITAR: Automated Model-Based Testing of Mobile Apps
Abstract
As mobile devices become increasingly smarter and more powerful, so too must the engineering of their software. User-interface-driven system testing of these devices is gaining popularity, with each vendor releasing some automation tool. However, these tools are inappropriate for amateur programmers, an increasing portion of app developers. MobiGUITAR (Mobile GUI Testing Framework) provides automated GUI-driven testing of Android apps. It's based on observation, extraction, and abstraction of GUI widgets' run-time state. The abstraction is a scalable state machine model that, together with test coverage criteria, provides a way to automatically generate test cases. When applied to four open-source Android apps, MobiGUITAR automatically generated and executed 7,711 test cases and reported 10 new bugs. Some bugs were Android-specific, stemming from the event- and activity-driven nature of Android.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dynodroid: an input generation system for Android apps
Machiry, A., Tahiliani, R., & Naik, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2491411.2491450 · Cited by 701
Using GUI ripping for automated testing of Android applications
Amalfitano, D., Fasolino, A. R., Tramontana, P., De Carmine, S., & Memon, A. M. (2012) · Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2351676.2351717 · Cited by 514
Self-citationAutomated concolic testing of smartphone apps
Anand, S., Naik, M., Harrold, M. J., & Yang, H. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2393596.2393666 · Cited by 401
GUI ripping: reverse engineering of graphical user interfaces for testing
Memon, A., Banerjee, I., & Nagarajan, A. (2004) · 10th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, 2003. WCRE 2003. Proceedings. · doi:10.1109/wcre.2003.1287256 · Cited by 379
Self-citationGuided GUI testing of android apps with minimal restart and approximate learning
Choi, W., Necula, G., & Sen, K. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages & applications · doi:10.1145/2509136.2509552 · Cited by 315
Automating GUI testing for Android applications
Hu, C., & Neamtiu, I. (2011) · Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test · doi:10.1145/1982595.1982612 · Cited by 308
Crawling Ajax-Based Web Applications through Dynamic Analysis of User Interface State Changes
Mesbah, A., van Deursen, A., & Lenselink, S. (2012) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/2109205.2109208 · Cited by 296
Coverage criteria for GUI testing
Memon, A. M., Soffa, M. L., & Pollack, M. E. (2001) · Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering · doi:10.1145/503209.503244 · Cited by 229
Self-citationSearch-based system testing: high coverage, no false alarms
Groß, F., Fraser, G., & Zeller, A. (2012) · International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/2338965.2336762 · Cited by 115
Context-Aware Adaptive Applications: Fault Patterns and Their Automated Identification
Sama, M., Elbaum, S. G., Raimondi, F., Rosenblum, D. S., & Wang, Z. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2010.35 · Cited by 98
Cited by
Automated mobile UI test fragility: an exploratory assessment study on Android
Coppola, R., Raffero, E., & Torchiano, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on User Interface Test Automation · doi:10.1145/2945404.2945406 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Amalfitano, D., Fasolino, A. R., Tramontana, P., Ta, B. D., & Memon, A. M.
- Venue
- IEEE Software
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 53-59
- ISSN
- 0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-4194
- OpenAlex
- W1812630525
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 70.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
