Leveraging existing tests in automated test generation for web applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test web applications, developers currently write test cases in frameworks such as Selenium. On the other hand, most web test generation techniques rely on a crawler to explore the dynamic states of the application. The first approach requires much manual effort, but benefits from the domain knowledge of the developer writing the test cases. The second one is automated and systematic, but lacks the domain knowledge required to be as effective. We believe combining the two can be advantageous. In this paper, we propose to (1) mine the human knowledge present in the form of input values, event sequences, and assertions, in the human-written test suites, (2) combine that inferred knowledge with the power of automated crawling, and (3) extend the test suite for uncovered/unchecked portions of the web application under test. Our approach is implemented in a tool called Testilizer. An evaluation of our approach indicates that Testilizer (1) outperforms a random test generator, and (2) on average, can generate test suites with improvements of up to 150% in fault detection rate and up to 30% in code coverage, compared to the original test suite.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".