Assurances in Software Testing: A Roadmap
As software engineering researchers we already understand how to make testing more effective and efficient at finding bugs. However, as fuzzing (here, short for automated software testing) becomes more widely adopted in practice, practitioners are asking: Which assurances does a fuzzing campaign provide that exposes no bugs? When is it safe to stop the fuzzer with a reasonable residual risk? How much longer should the fuzzer be run to achieve sufficient coverage?
It is time for us to move beyond the innovation of increasingly sophisticated testing techniques, to build a body of knowledge around the explication and quantification of the testing process, and to develop sound methodologies to estimate and extrapolate these quantities with measurable accuracy. In our vision of the future practitioners leverage a rich statistical toolset to assess residual risk, to obtain statistical guarantees, and to analyze the cost-benefit trade-off for ongoing fuzzing campaigns. We propose a general framework as a first starting point to tackle this fundamental challenge and discuss a large number of concrete opportunities for future research.
Wed 29 May Times are displayed in time zone: (GMT-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) change
|11:00 - 11:20|
|11:20 - 11:40|
|11:40 - 11:50|
An interleaving approach to combinatorial testing and failure-inducing interaction identificationIndustry ProgramJournal-First
|11:50 - 12:00|
An Empirical Comparison of Combinatorial Testing, Random Testing and Adaptive Random TestingIndustry ProgramJournal-First
|12:00 - 12:10|
Marcel BöhmeMonash UniversityPre-print
|12:10 - 12:20|
Automatic Test Improvement with DSpot: a Study with Ten Mature Open-Source ProjectsIndustry ProgramJournal-First
|12:20 - 12:30|