|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
Test coverage is sometimes used as a way to measure how thoroughly software is tested. Coverage is used by software developers and sometimes by vendors to indicate their confidence in the readiness of their software. This survey studies and compares 17 coverage-based testing tools focusing on, but not restricted to coverage measurement. We also survey additional features, including program prioritization for testing, assistance in debugging, automatic generation of test cases, and customization of test reports. Such features make tools more useful and practical, especially for large-scale, real-life commercial software applications. Our initial motivations were both to understand the available test coverage tools and to compare them to a tool that we have developed, called eXVantage1 (a tool suite that includes code coverage testing, debugging, performance profiling, and reporting). Our study shows that each tool has its unique features tailored to its application domains. Therefore this study can be used to pick the right coverage testing tools depending on various requirements. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Keywords:
REVIEW
"Timothy R. Hopkins : Reviewer"
The authors use this paper to showcase their test coverage tool, eXVantage. In addition, however, they provide a comparative overview of 17 open source and commercial test coverage tools. While these tools also implement a wide variety of other fe
more...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||