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

Rebecca Hicks

dblp:132/2445 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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 · 56% Requirements engineering and software design · 28% Program analysis · 8%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › specification
executable specification
0.212013
Declarative mocking · ISSTA 2013
Software testing › test process › test design
test specification
0.212013
Declarative mocking · ISSTA 2013
Program verification › decision procedure
constraint solver
0.012013
Declarative mocking · ISSTA 2013
Program analysis
constraint solving
0.012013
Declarative mocking · ISSTA 2013

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

executable specification · 0.2constraint solving · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Declarative mocking
abstract
Test-driven methodologies encourage testing early and often. "Mock objects" support this approach by allowing a component to be tested before all depended-upon components are available. Today mock objects typically reflect little to none of an object's intended functionality, which makes it difficult and error-prone for developers to test rich properties of their code. This paper presents "declarative mocking", which enables the creation of expressive and reliable mock objects with relatively little effort. In our approach, developers write method specifications in a high-level logical language for the API being mocked, and a constraint solver dynamically executes these specifications when the methods are invoked. In addition to mocking functionality, this approach seamlessly allows data and other aspects of the environment to be easily mocked. We have implemented the approach as an extension to an existing tool for executable specifications in Java called PBnJ. We have performed an exploratory study of declarative mocking on several existing Java applications, in order to understand the power of the approach and to categorize its potential benefits and limitations. We also performed an experiment to port the unit tests of several open-source applications from a widely used mocking library to PBnJ. We found that more than half of these unit tests can be enhanced, in terms of the strength of properties and coverage, by exploiting executable specifications, with relatively little additional developer effort.
Hesam Samimi, Rebecca Hicks, Ari Fogel, Todd D. Millstein
ISSTA2