Reducing the effects of infeasible paths in branch testing
TAV3 Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT '89 third symposium on Software testing, analysis, and verification
Predictive metric for likely feasibility of program paths
Journal of Electronic Materials
How many paths are needed for branch testing?
Journal of Systems and Software - Special issue on software reliability issues
Software unit test coverage and adequacy
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
An assessment of the number of paths needed for control flow testing
ENCRESS '97 IFIP TC5 WG5.4 3rd internatinal conference on on Reliability, quality and safety of software-intensive systems
Evaluating Testing Methods by Delivered Reliability
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
A Comparison of Some Structural Testing Strategies
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Provable Improvements on Branch Testing
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Improving test suites via operational abstraction
Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering
ATACOBOL: A COBOL Test Coverage Analysis Tool and Its Applications
ISSRE '00 Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering
A Unified Symbolic Execution System
AICCSA '01 Proceedings of the ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications
On Two Problems in the Generation of Program Test Paths
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Experience with Path Analysis and Testing of Programs
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
On Partitioning Program Graphs
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Mutation based test case generation via a path selection strategy
Information and Software Technology
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Branch testing is a well established method for exercising software. JJ-path testing, whilst employed by some practitioners, is less popular, and the testing of JJ-pairs finds few adherents. In this paper an objective, practical study of the cost-effectiveness of these three testing methods is reported. The effectiveness of each method is assessed, in the presence of infeasible paths, not only on its ability to cover the specific structural element of code that it targets, but also on its ability to cover the structural elements targeted by the other two methods - the collateral coverage it achieves. The assessment is based on the results derived from experiments in which each of the three methods is applied to 35 units of program code.