| dc.contributor.advisor |
Michael Ernst |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.author |
Saff, David |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.author |
Boshernitsan, Marat |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.author |
Ernst, Michael D. |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.other |
Program Analysis |
en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2008-01-15T14:15:58Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2008-01-15T14:15:58Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2008-01-14 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.other |
MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/40090 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
Automated testing during development helps ensure that software works according to the test suite. Traditional test suites verify a few well-picked scenarios or example inputs. However, such example-based testing does not uncover errors in legal inputs that the test writer overlooked. We propose theory-based testing as an adjunct to example-based testing. A theory generalizes a (possibly infinite) set of example-based tests. A theory is an assertion that should be true for any data, and it can be exercised by human-chosen data or by automatic data generation. A theory is expressed in an ordinary programming language, it is easy for developers to use (often even easier than example-based testing), and it serves as a lightweight form of specification. Six case studies demonstrate the utility of theories that generalize existing tests to prevent bugs, clarify intentions, and reveal design problems. |
en_US |
| dc.description.provenance |
Submitted by CSAIL Importer (publications-dspace@csail.mit.edu) on 2008-01-15T14:15:56Z
No. of bitstreams: 2
MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002.pdf: 245221 bytes, checksum: 3a669fad8dafb0f7483d1249d66eb7de (MD5)
MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002.ps: 1065511 bytes, checksum: 76e053fda3df0d84d8659fff9a24ba91 (MD5) |
en |
| dc.description.provenance |
Made available in DSpace on 2008-01-15T14:15:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2
MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002.pdf: 245221 bytes, checksum: 3a669fad8dafb0f7483d1249d66eb7de (MD5)
MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002.ps: 1065511 bytes, checksum: 76e053fda3df0d84d8659fff9a24ba91 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2008-01-14 |
en |
| dc.format.extent |
10 p. |
en_US |
| dc.relation |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
JUnit, testing, partial specification |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Theories in Practice: Easy-to-Write Specifications that Catch Bugs |
en_US |
