4. Dynamic Analysis: Testing

(Last Update: 2022-03-02)
Dynamic analysis is “the analysis of the properties of a running software system” [Ball1999]. It is complementary to static analysis techniques. Some properties that cannot be studied through static analysis can be examined with dynamic analysis and vice versa. The applications of dynamic analysis techniques are very broad: program comprehension, system verification, resource profiling, test analysis, etc. In this session, we focus on one very important aspect of dynamic analysis: Testing.
As the chapter so eloquently states, "Tests: Your Life Insurance!" (OORP, p.149). Tests are essential for Reengineering activities. They can help you: (1) to reveal unwanted side effects of refactoring ("Write Tests to Enable Evolution", OORP, p.153); and (2) to understand the inner workings of a system ("Write tests to Understand", OORP, p.179). 
The presence of automated tests does however not offer any guarantee about its quality. Do the tests cover the whole system or are some parts left untested? Which parts are covered to which extend? Hence, measuring test coverage is a useful, even necessary, way to assess the quality and usefulness of a test suite in the context of reengineering.

Materials & Tools Used for this Session

  • Session video lecture here, and slides here.
  • IntelliJ IDE already comes with a test coverage plugin (you can use Eclipse at your discretion, but it may require some adaptations for the project we are using during the lab sessions). 
  • JPacman repository.
  • SonarQube is a tool/platform that performs static analysis on source codes. It shows test coverage data from the output of dynamic analysis tools. For Java, it uses the output of JaCoCo tool.
  • LittleDarwin is a tool to perform Mutation testing on Java applications. Mutation testing is a relatively new topic, therefore it is difficult to find working tools for it. 
  • JaCoCo is an eclipse plugin for coverage analysis. It is also available as a maven repository. Newer versions of IntelliJ already have this plugin pre-installed as a part of the test coverage plugin.

Auxiliary Tools

Auxiliary tools are not required for the lab session itself, but they may be useful to get additional information (or alternatives) on a project. Use them at your own discretion. 

  • DSpot is a tool for test-amplification in Java code. Test-amplification generates new test cases using the original tests as seeds. It supports projects build in Maven and Gradle, and it has plugins for IntelliJ and Eclipse.
  • Randoop is a test generation tool. It automatically generates unit tests for Java classes.

Setup / Preparation

Be sure to follow the setup and the tasks from the last session (Refactoring Assistants). Especially, the task on executing SonarQube. As per usual, you will also need IntelliJ and JPacman. Moreover, if you have not already, download the book for this course "Object-Oriented Reengineering Patterns(Note: OORP, p.xx refers to a page in the pdf version of this book)

Get/Install the tools & plugins detailed in the Materials above (not the auxiliary tools, they are optional and will not be used in this lab session).


Task 1 -- JPacman Test Coverage

We will begin by using the IntelliJ IDE test coverage plugin. The testing and coverage plugins should be enabled by default. If you are not sure, check if your plugins called "Coverage", "JUnit", and "TestNG" are enabled (inside the Preferences you can see the plugins).
First, make sure that you can test your JPacman, by using the following command line in the IntelliJ terminal:
./gradlew test
Now, right-click on the "test" folder (inside the "src" folder) and select the option "Run 'Tests' in 'jpacman.test' with Coverage". If that option is not available, select "Build Module 'jpacman.test' " and after the build right-click again and the option  "Run 'Tests' in 'jpacman.test' with Coverage" should be available.
Alternatively, you can also right-click on the Gradle task "test" (inside the "verification" task group) shown in the Gradle plugin (default position is a collapsed tab on the right part of your IntelliJ). Select "Run 'jpacman [test]' with Coverage'. This Gradle task should produce the same coverage. Therefore, use whichever you prefer. 
If everything executed without errors, you should see a new window showing the code coverage. Please try to remember this coverage (or take a screenshot to not depend on your memory).
  • Is the coverage good enough?
  • If you make any changes in JPacman sources, can you rely on the current tests to catch faults?

Task 2 -- Increasing Coverage on JPacman

For the second task, we will increase the coverage on JPacman. Doing that is very simple, we just need to write more tests. In this task, we are going to write one new test case. As you saw in the last task, the coverage for several packages is zero percent.
Let's create a simple unit test on a method. We will test the "isAlive()" method in class "Player" (package level). You should look at the "DirectionTest" class (folder test, package board) as a template for your test case. The hardest part is instantiating a Player object as it requires other objects. The PlayerFactory class is responsible for creating instances of Player. And, PlayerFactory constructor requires a PacManSprites (package sprites) object. Therefore, you need to instantiate a PacManSprites object, to pass it on to the constructor of PlayerFactory, and only then you can call the factory method to create a Player.
Create the package "level" in the "test" folder. Then, create the class "PlayerTest" inside this package "level". Now you can write the test case for testing the method "isAlive()" from Player. 
Here is an example of such a test class, but I strongly advise you to try for yourself (it is a simple test and the hardest part is just to instantiate the objects).
After adding the new test, build "jpacman.test" again and run it with coverage. If your test does not have any errors, you should see the IntelliJ window showing the code coverage. Leave this window with the coverage information on as you may need it to answer the questions from the next task (or take a screenshot of it).
  • How did the new test affect the coverage?
  • Do you think 100% coverage is feasible?
  • What would you propose as a good level of code coverage?

Task 3 -- JaCoCo Report on JPacman

The gradle build file provided in JPacman, already has JaCoCo configured. Look at the folder "build/reports/jacoco/test/html", right-click on the file "index.html" and select "Open in Browser". This is the coverage report from the JaCoCo tool. As you can see, JaCoCo shows not only line coverage but also branch coverage. Click on the level package, then on the Player class, and after that on any method. You will see the source code with color information on which branches are covered (or partially covered).
  • Are the coverage results from JaCoCo similar to the ones you got from IntelliJ in the last task? Why so or why not?
  • Did you find helpful the source code visualization from JaCoCo on uncovered branches?
  • Which visualization did you prefer, IntelliJ coverage window or JaCoCo report?

Task 4 -- SonarQube Coverage Information on JPacman

SonarQube is a static analysis tool. But it can show the results from test coverage in its interface. First, let's run SonarQube as is (note that you need to have Java JDK 11 to run the current version of SonarQube). Make sure your SonarQube service is running. Open your browser in localhost:9000 and if you can see the SonarQube page, it is running. If not you should check the SonarQube documentation on how to start the service or the lab session on Refactoring Assistants
You should see your JPacman project on SonarQube. Click on the tab "Measures" and on the left menu select "Coverage" > "Overview". You can see that SonarQube has no coverage information. Click on "Unit tests" on the left submenu and you will not see your new PlayerTest is in here. That is because we added this test after SonarQube performed its last analysis.
Lets update it by running the following command on IntelliJ terminal (all in the same line):
./gradlew sonarqube -Dsonar.projectKey=jpacman  
    -Dsonar.login=admin -Dsonar.password=reengineering
You can also use the token instead of login/password if you prefer. Now go back to the SonarQube page and look over the new information added for JPacman. Even though SonarQube does not perform dynamic analysis and cannot execute your tests, it does automatically fetch coverage information from your JaCoCo XML report.
Since the JPacman on the course repository is already configured to output XML reports for JaCoCo, you are fine. However, if you do want to configure that on other projects, make sure to change build.gradle file. Inside that file search for 'jacocoTestReport' and add "xml.enabled true" inside the 'reports' group. You can see an example on the JPacman gradle.build lines 62-68. To be sure, check the folder "build/reports/jacoco/test", there should be a file there named "jacocoTestReport.xml". If the xml file is not there, try to do a gradlew build, look for errors, and finally another run with coverage. 
To reiterate, your SonarQube should automatically fetch the JaCoCo XML report and show you coverage information after performing another analysis with the above command. If you have that, you can jump to the next paragraph. In case your SonarQube is still not showing coverage even after the JaCoCo XML report, you may need to inform SonarQube by the command line where the report is located. This is the command for that (run on IntelliJ terminal -- all in the same line):
./gradlew sonarqube -Dsonar.projectKey=jpacman  
    -Dsonar.login=admin -Dsonar.password=reengineering 
Check SonarQube page again (localhost:9000) and try to see the coverage overview. Then, click on the "Conditions to Cover" (Branches) and select the Player file. Check this visualization option which is very similar to JaCoCo but more interactive. 
  • What do you think of the overview coverage visualization provided by SonarQube?
  • Which did you find better to visualize the source code with branch coverage, JaCoCo or SonarQube?

Task 5 -- Mutation Testing on JPacman

Mutation testing is a method of determining the quality of a test suite in detail. Mutation testing simulates faults and checks whether the test suite is good enough to catch those simulated faults. It is performed by injecting faults into the software and counting the number of these faults that make at least one test fail. The process for mutation testing requires the following steps. First, faulty versions of the software are created by introducing a single fault into the system (Mutation). This is done by applying a known transformation (Mutation Operator) on a certain part of the code. After generating the faulty versions of the software (Mutants), the test suite is executed on each one of these mutants. If there is an error or failure during the execution of the test suite, the mutant is marked as killed (Killed Mutant). On the other hand, if all tests pass, it means that the test suite could not catch the fault and the mutant has survived (Survived Mutant). Mutation testing demands a green test suite — a test suite in which all the tests pass — to run correctly. The final result is calculated by dividing the number of killed mutants by the number of all mutants. A test suite is said to achieve full test adequacy whenever it can kill all of the mutants. Such test suites are called mutation-adequate test suites. 
For the lab, we recommend using the tool LittleDarwin to perform mutation testing on Java. This tool was developed here, at the University of Antwerp. LittleDarwin is a mutation testing tool written in python that can analyze a wide range of Java applications. It is built with the purpose of easy deployment in an industrial environment, and it can handle complicated build system structures often found in such cases.  
To install LittleDarwin follow the instructions on its GitHub page. On Mac/Linux already with python you just need to use the following command to install it:
pip3 install littledarwin
 In this task, you will try mutation testing on JPacman. Install LittleDarwin and run it on JPacman source code. Mutation testing is a slow procedure, the process may take between 10 to 25 minutes on JPacman. Therefore, don't "kill" the process if you think it is taking too long (let the tool do its job). Also, make sure to run LittleDarwin in a separate terminal/command window (otherwise you may freeze your IntelliJ). Use the following command inside the jpacman folder:
littledarwin  -m -b  -p ./src/main/ -t ./ -c ./gradlew,test --timeout=180
After it is finished, you can find the report in a structure similar to "/LittleDarwinResults/report.html" (there is a zip in the repository with such reports for JPacman so that you can see the results without waiting). This is like a JaCoCo report but instead of showing coverage percentage, it shows Mutation Coverage (i.e., the percentage of mutants killed). A high mutation score indicates that your test suite is a good quality one. Take the JaCoCo report or SonarQube results on coverage and compare it with the mutation coverage.
  • Find classes that have low mutation coverage and high statement coverage. What does this indicate?
  • In these classes, find a survived mutant that is within a covered statement (you can use the line numbers and the before-after comments inside each mutant to find them in the code). Why does this happen? 
  • Find classes that have high mutation coverage and low statement coverage. What does this indicate?
  • In these classes, look for a killed mutant that is not within a covered statement. Why does this happen?
  • Given the previous observations, do you think statement coverage is a reliable metric for the quality of the test suite? Why (not)?
  • Can the accuracy of mutation testing be improved? If yes, how do you think it is possible?
  • How can mutation testing help write new tests?

Optional Task -- Increasing (Even More) the Coverage on JPacman

As an optional task, try to increase the coverage even further on JPacman. Look for places with lower coverage and create new tests for those. This could help you understand better the application as explained in the pattern "Write tests to Understand" (OORP, p.179). 
  • Did your knowledge of JPacman inner structures improve after creating new tests for it?
  • Do you feel more confident in changing the artifacts where you increased their coverage?