The Community for Technology Leaders
18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings. (2003)
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Oct. 6, 2003 to Oct. 10, 2003
ISSN: 1527-1366
ISBN: 0-7695-2035-9
pp: 164
Atif Memon , University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Ishan Banerjee , University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Adithya Nagarajan , University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
ABSTRACT
Test designers widely believe that the overall effectiveness and cost of software testing depends largely on the type and number of test cases executed on the software. In this paper we show that the test oracle used during testing also contributes significantly to test effectiveness and cost. A test oracle is a mechanism that determines whether a software executed correctly for a test case. We define a test oracle to contain two essential parts: oracle information that represents expected output, and an oracle procedure that compares the oracle information with the actual output. By varying the level of detail of oracle information and changing the oracle procedure, a test designer can create different types of test oracles. We design 11 types of test oracles and empirically compare them on four software systems. We seed faults in each software to create 100 faulty versions, execute 600 test cases on each version, for all 11 types of oracles. In all, we report results of 660,000 test runs on each software. We show (1) the time and space requirements of the oracles, (2) that faults are detected early in the testing process when using detailed oracle information and complex oracle procedures, although at a higher cost per test case, and (3) that employing expensive oracles results in detecting a large number of faults using relatively smaller number of test cases.
INDEX TERMS
Test oracles, oracle procedure, oracle information, GUI testing, empirical studies
CITATION

I. Banerjee, A. Nagarajan and A. Memon, "What Test Oracle Should I Use for Effective GUI Testing?," 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings.(ASE), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2003, pp. 164.
doi:10.1109/ASE.2003.1240304
84 ms
(Ver 3.3 (11022016))