Does mutation testing improve testing practices?
Goran Petrovi\'c, Marko Ivankovi\'c, Gordon Fraser, Ren\'e Just

TL;DR
This study investigates whether mutation testing enhances testing practices by analyzing a large dataset, showing it encourages more comprehensive testing and is linked to real faults, thus potentially improving test quality.
Contribution
The paper provides empirical evidence that mutation testing leads to more extensive test suites and is associated with real faults, filling a gap in understanding its practical benefits.
Findings
Developers using mutation testing write more tests.
Mutants are linked to real faults, indicating practical relevance.
Mutation testing can potentially prevent bugs if used effectively.
Abstract
Various proxy metrics for test quality have been defined in order to guide developers when writing tests. Code coverage is particularly well established in practice, even though the question of how coverage relates to test quality is a matter of ongoing debate. Mutation testing offers a promising alternative: Artificial defects can identify holes in a test suite, and thus provide concrete suggestions for additional tests. Despite the obvious advantages of mutation testing, it is not yet well established in practice. Until recently, mutation testing tools and techniques simply did not scale to complex systems. Although they now do scale, a remaining obstacle is lack of evidence that writing tests for mutants actually improves test quality. In this paper we aim to fill this gap: By analyzing a large dataset of almost 15 million mutants, we investigate how these mutants influenced…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
