Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Patrick Emmisberger

dblp:150/7400 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › mutation testing
fault injection
0.312017
A general framework for dynamic stub injection · ICSE 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

domain-specific language · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 A general framework for dynamic stub injection
abstract
Stub testing is a standard technique to simulate the behavior of dependencies of an application under test such as the file system. Even though existing frameworks automate the actual stub injection, testers typically have to implement manually where and when to inject stubs, in addition to the stub behavior. This paper presents a novel framework that reduces this effort. The framework provides a domain specific language to describe stub injection strategies and stub behaviors via declarative rules, as well as a tool that automatically injects stubs dynamically into binary code according to these rules. Both the domain specific language and the injection are language independent, which enables the reuse of stubs and injection strategies across applications. We implemented this framework for both unmanaged (assembly) and managed (.NET) code and used it to perform fault injection for twelve large applications, which revealed numerous crashes and bugs in error handling code. We also show how to prioritize the analysis of test failures based on a comparison of the effectiveness of stub injection rules across applications.
Maria Christakis, Patrick Emmisberger, Patrice Godefroid, Peter Müller 0001
ICSE2
2014 Dynamic Test Generation with Static Fields and Initializers
Maria Christakis, Patrick Emmisberger, Peter Müller 0001
RV2