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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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