MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386031629 · doi:10.1145/3617171

<scp>StubCoder</scp> : Automated Generation and Repair of Stub Code for Mock Objects

2023· article· en· W4386031629 on OpenAlexafffund
Hengcheng Zhu, Lili Wei, Valerio Terragni, Yepang Liu, Shing-Chi Cheung, Jiarong Wu, Qin Sheng, Bing Zhang, Lihong Song

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyImpact FundNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStub (electronics)Computer scienceUnit testingRegression testingLeverage (statistics)Test caseProgramming languageSoftwareSoftware developmentArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStructural engineeringMachine learningSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mocking is an essential unit testing technique for isolating the class under test from its dependencies. Developers often leverage mocking frameworks to develop stub code that specifies the behaviors of mock objects. However, developing and maintaining stub code is labor-intensive and error-prone. In this article, we present StubCoder to automatically generate and repair stub code for regression testing. StubCoder implements a novel evolutionary algorithm that synthesizes test-passing stub code guided by the runtime behavior of test cases. We evaluated our proposed approach on 59 test cases from 13 open source projects. Our evaluation results show that StubCoder can effectively generate stub code for incomplete test cases without stub code and repair obsolete test cases with broken stub code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207