Empirical studies in software testing research may not be comparable, reproducible, or characteristic of practice. One reason is that real bugs are too infrequently used in software testing research. Extracting and reproducing real bugs is challenging and as a result hand-seeded faults or mutants are commonly used as a substitute. This paper presents Defects4J, a database and extensible framework providing real bugs to enable reproducible studies in software testing research. The initial version of Defects4J contains 357 real bugs from 5 real-world open source pro- grams. Each real bug is accompanied by a comprehensive test suite that can expose (demonstrate) that bug. Defects4J is extensible and builds on top of each program’s version con- trol system. Once a program is configured in Defects4J, new bugs can be added to the database with little or no effort. Defects4J features a framework to easily access faulty and fixed program versions and corresponding test suites. This framework also provides a high-level interface to common tasks in software testing research, making it easy to con- duct and reproduce empirical studies. Defects4J is publicly available at http://defects4j.org.

In a test suite, all the test cases should be independent: no test should affect any other test’s result, and running the tests in any order should produce the same test results. Techniques such as test prioritization generally assume that the tests in a suite are independent. Test dependence is a little-studied phenomenon. This paper presents five results related to test dependence.

A good test suite is one that detects real faults. Because the set of faults in a program is usually unknowable, this definition is not useful to practitioners who are creating test suites, nor to researchers who are creating and evaluating tools that generate test suites. In place of real faults, testing research often uses mutants, which are artificial faults -- each one a simple syntactic variation -- that are systematically seeded throughout the program under test. Mutation analysis is appealing because large numbers of mutants can be automatically-generated and used to compensate for low quantities or the absence of known real faults. Unfortunately, there is little experimental evidence to support the use of mutants as a replacement for real faults. This paper investigates whether mutants are indeed a valid substitute for real faults, i.e., whether a test suite’s ability to detect mutants is correlated with its ability to detect real faults that developers have fixed. Unlike prior studies, these investigations also explicitly consider the conflating effects of code coverage on the mutant detection rate. Our experiments used 357 real faults in 5 open-source applications that comprise a total of 321,000 lines of code. Furthermore, our experiments used both developer-written and automatically-generated test suites. The results show a statistically significant correlation between mutant detection and real fault detection, independently of code coverage. The results also give concrete suggestions on how to improve mutation analysis and reveal some inherent limitations.