ABSTRACT
Source-to-source code translation automatically translates a program from one programming language to another. The existing research on code translation evaluates the effectiveness of their approaches by using either syntactic similarities (e.g., BLEU score), or test execution results. The former does not consider semantics, the latter considers semantics but falls short on the problem of insufficient data and tests. In this paper, we propose MBTA (Mutation-based Code Translation Analysis), a novel application of mutation analysis for code translation assessment. We also introduce MTS (Mutation-based Translation Score), a measure to compute the level of trustworthiness of a translator. If a mutant of an input program shows different test execution results from its translated version, the mutant is killed and a translation bug is revealed. Fewer killed mutants indicate better code translation. MBTA is novel in the sense that mutants are compared to their translated counterparts, and not to their original program's translation. We conduct a proof-of-concept case study with 612 Java-Python program pairs and 75,082 mutants on the code translators TransCoder and j2py to evaluate the feasibility of MBTA. The results reveal that TransCoder and j2py fail to translate 70.44% and 70.64% of the mutants, respectively, i.e., more than two-thirds of all mutants are incorrectly translated by these translators. By analysing the MTS results more closely, we were able to reveal translation bugs not captured by the conventional comparison between the original and translated programs.
ABSTRACT
Bug reports are used by software testers to identify abnormal software behaviour. In this paper, we propose a multi-objective evolutionary approach to automatically generate finite state machines (FSMs) based on bug reports written in natural language, to automatically capture incorrect software behaviour. These FSMs can then be used by testers to both exercise the reported bugs and create tests that can potentially reveal new bugs. The FSM generation is guided by a Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) that simultaneously minimises three objectives: size of the models, number of unrealistic states (over-generalisation), and number of states not covered by the models (under-generalisation). We assess the feasibility of our approach for 10 real-world software programs by exploiting three different MOEAs (NSGA-II, NSGA-III and MOEA/D) and benchmarking them with the baseline tool KLFA. Our results show that KLFA is not practical to be used with real-world software, because it generates models that over generalise software behaviour. Among the three MOEAs, NSGA-II obtained significantly better results than the other two for all 10 programs, detecting a greater number of bugs for 90% of the programs. We also studied the differences in quality and model performance when MOEAs are guided by only two objectives rather than three during the evolution. We found that the use of under-approximation (or over-approximation) and size as objectives generates infeasible solutions. On the other hand, using as objectives over-approximation and under-approximation generates feasible solutions yet still worse than those obtained using all three objectives for 100% of the cases. The size objective acts as a diversity factor. As a consequence, an algorithm guided by all three objectives avoids local optima, controls the size of the models, and makes the results more diverse and closer to the optimal Pareto set.