Cited by 63Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFormal Methods in Verification

Toward variability-aware testing

Kästner, Christian, von Rhein, Alexander, Erdweg, Sebastian, Pusch, Jonas, Apel, Sven, Rendel, Tillmann, Ostermann, Klaus·2012·Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development - FOSD '12

Abstract

We investigate how to execute a unit test for all products of a product line without generating each product in isolation in a brute-force fashion. Learning from variability-aware analyses, we (a) design and implement a variability-aware interpreter and, alternatively, (b) reencode variability of the product line to simulate the test cases with a model checker. The interpreter internally reasons about variability, executing paths not affected by variability only once for the whole product line. The model checker achieves similar results by reusing powerful off-the-shelf analyses. We experimented with a prototype implementation for each strategy. We compare both strategies and discuss trade-offs and future directions. In the long run, we aim at finding an efficient testing approach that can be applied to entire product lines with millions of products.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2377816.2377817

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The number of tests needed to evaluate every possible value pair can be significantly smaller than the exhaustive testing alternative.

    “The number of tests needed to evaluate every possible value pair can be significantly smaller than the exhaustive testing alternative since each test can simultaneously contribute to multiple value pairs [22, 44, 80].”

    From Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination (2017) · cites this paper as [44]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kästner, C., von Rhein, A., Erdweg, S., Pusch, J., Apel, S., Rendel, T., & Ostermann, K.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Passau (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development - FOSD '12
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
2012
Pages
1-8
OpenAlex
W2094819373
Cited by
63
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5
FWCI
6.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
Keywords
software product lines, unit testing, model checking, test case reuse

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