How to generate, print barcode using .NET, Java sdk library control with example project source code free download:
5.6 BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES generate, create pdf417 2d barcode none with software projects Web app We trace the use of gr pdf417 2d barcode for None ammars for testing compilers back to Hanford [150], who motivated subsequent related work [26, 107, 176, 285, 294]. Maurer s Data Generation Language (DGL) tool [231] showed the applicability of grammar-based generation to many types of software, a theme echoed in detail by Beizer [29]. Legend has it that the rst ideas of mutation analysis were postulated in 1971 in a class term paper by Richard Lipton.

The rst research papers were published by. Syntax-Based Testing Budd and Sayward [52], PDF 417 for None Hamlet [148], and DeMillo, Lipton, and Sayward [99] in the late 1970s; DeMillo, Lipton, and Sayward s paper [99] is generally cited as the seminal reference. Mutation has primarily been applied to software by creating mutant versions of the source, but has also been applied to formal software speci cations. The original analysis of the number of mutants was by Budd [53], who analyzed the number of mutants generated for a program and found it to be roughly proportional to the product of the number of variable references times the number of data objects (O(Refs*Vars)).

A later analysis [5] claimed that the number of mutants is O(Lines*Refs) assuming that the number of data objects in a program is proportional to the number of lines. This was reduced to O(Lines*Lines) for most programs; this gure appears in most of the literature. A statistical regression analysis of actual programs by Offutt et al.

[269] showed that the number of lines did not contribute to the number of mutants, but that Budd s gure is accurate. The selective mutation approach mentioned under Designing Mutation Operators eliminates the number of data objects so that the number of mutants is proportional to the number of variable references (O(Refs)). A variant of mutation that has been widely discussed is weak mutation [134, 167, 358, 271].

However, experimentation has shown that the difference is very small [163, 226, 271]. Mutation operators have been designed for various programming languages, including Fortran IV [19, 56], COBOL [151], Fortran 77 [101, 187], C [95], C integration testing [94], Lisp [55], Ada [40, 276], Java [185], and Java class relationships [219, 220]. Research proof-of-concept tools have been built for Fortran IV and 77, COBOL, C, Java, and Java class relationships.

By far the most widely used tool is Mothra, a mutation system for Fortran 77 that was built in the mid 1980s at Georgia Tech. Mothra was built under the leadership of Rich DeMillo, with most of the design done by DeMillo and Offutt, and most of the implementation by Offutt and King, with help from Krauser and Spafford. In its heyday in the early 1990s, Mothra was installed at well over a hundred sites and the research that was done to build Mothra and that later used Mothra as a laboratory resulted in around half a dozen PhD dissertations and many dozens of papers.

As far as we know, the only commercial tool that supports mutation is by the company Certess, in the chip design industry. The coupling effect says that complex faults are coupled to simple faults in such a way that test data that detects all simple faults will detect most complex faults [99]. The coupling effect was supported empirically for programs in 1992 [263], and has shown to hold probabilistically for large classes of programs in 1995 [335].

Budd [51] discussed the concept of program neighborhoods. The neighborhood concept was used to present the competent programmer hypothesis [99]. The fundamental premise of mutation testing, as coined by Geist et al.

[133] is: in practice, if the software contains a fault, there will usually be a set of mutants that can be killed only by a test case that also detects that fault. The operation of replacing each statement with a bomb was called Statement ANalysis (SAN) in Mothra [187]. Mothra s Relational Operator Replacement (ROR) operator replaces each occurrence of a relational operator (<, >, , , =, =) with each other operator and the expression with true and false.

The above subsumption proofs used only the latter operators. Mothra s Logical Connector Replacement (LCR) operator replaces each occurrence of one of the logical operators ( , , , =).
Copyright © . All rights reserved.