In this paper, we share our experience with using reflection as a systematic tool to build advanced debuggers. We illustrate the usage and combination of reflection techniques for the implementation of object-centric debugging. Object-centric debugging is a technique for object-oriented systems that scopes debugging operations to specific objects. The implementation of this technique is not straightforward, as there are, to the best of our knowledge, no description in the literature about how to build such debugger.

Debugging is one of the most important and time consuming activities in software maintenance, yet mainstream debuggers are not well-adapted to several debugging scenarios. This has led to the research of new techniques covering specific families of complex bugs. Notably, recent research proposes to empower developers with scripting DSLs, plugin-based and moldable debuggers. However, these solutions are tailored to specific use-cases, or too costly for one-time-use scenarios. In this paper we argue that exposing a debugging scripting interface in mainstream debuggers helps in solving many challenging debugging scenarios. For this purpose, we present Sindarin, a scripting API that eases the expression and automation of different strategies developers pursue during their debugging sessions. Sindarin provides a GDB-like API, augmented with AST-bytecode-source code mappings and object-centric capabilities. To demonstrate the versatility of Sindarin, we reproduce several advanced breakpoints and non-trivial debugging mechanisms from the literature.

Summary A benefit of model‐driven engineering relies on the automatic generation of artefacts from high‐level models through intermediary levels using model transformations. In such a process, the input must be well designed, and the model transformations should be trustworthy. Because of the specificities of models and transformations, classical software test techniques have to be adapted. Among these techniques, mutation analysis has been ported, and a set of mutation operators has been defined. However, it currently requires considerable manual work and suffers from the test data set improvement activity. This activity is a difficult and time‐consuming job and reduces the benefits of the mutation analysis. This paper addresses the test data set improvement activity. Model transformation traceability in conjunction with a model of mutation operators and a dedicated algorithm allow to automatically or semi‐automatically produce improved test models. The approach is validated and illustrated in two case studies written in Kermeta.Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.