StubCoder: Automated Generation and Repair of Stub Code for Mock Objects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14733v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 09:42:40 GMT
• Title: StubCoder: Automated Generation and Repair of Stub Code for Mock Objects
• Abstract summary: StubCoder implements a novel evolutionary algorithm that synthesizes test-passing stub code guided by runtime behavior of test cases. 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.
• Score: 13.879622616667572
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Mocking is an essential unit testing technique for isolating the class under test (CUT) 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 paper, 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.

Related papers

• CASCADE: Detecting Inconsistencies between Code and Documentation with Automatic Test Generation [0.7611870296994722]
  Maintaining consistency between code and documentation is a crucial yet frequently overlooked aspect of software development.<n>We introduce CASCADE, a novel tool for detecting inconsistencies with a strong emphasis on reducing false positives.<n>We evaluated CASCADE on a novel dataset of 71 inconsistent and 814 consistent code-documentation pairs drawn from open-source Java projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T12:26:54Z)
• Code-A1: Adversarial Evolving of Code LLM and Test LLM via Reinforcement Learning [54.95476453942411]
  Reinforcement learning for code generation relies on verifiable rewards from unit test pass rates.<n>Recent self-play methods unify code and test generation in a single model.<n>Code-A1 achieves code generation performance matching or exceeding models trained on human-annotated tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T17:58:13Z)
• Alignment with Fill-In-the-Middle for Enhancing Code Generation [56.791415642365415]
  We propose a novel approach that splits code snippets into smaller, granular blocks, creating more diverse DPO pairs from the same test cases.<n>Our approach demonstrates significant improvements in code generation tasks, as validated by experiments on benchmark datasets such as HumanEval (+), MBPP (+), APPS, LiveCodeBench, and BigCodeBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T03:15:53Z)
• Automated Test Generation from Program Documentation Encoded in Code Comments [4.696083734269232]
  This paper introduces a novel test generation technique that exploits the code-comment documentation constructively. We deliver test cases with names and oracles properly contextualized on the target behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T20:23:56Z)
• SolBench: A Dataset and Benchmark for Evaluating Functional Correctness in Solidity Code Completion and Repair [51.0686873716938]
  We introduce SolBench, a benchmark for evaluating the functional correctness of Solidity smart contracts generated by code completion models. We propose a Retrieval-Augmented Code Repair framework to verify functional correctness of smart contracts. Results show that code repair and retrieval techniques effectively enhance the correctness of smart contract completion while reducing computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T01:55:20Z)
• METAMON: Finding Inconsistencies between Program Documentation and Behavior using Metamorphic LLM Queries [10.9334354663311]
  This paper proposes METAMON, which uses an existing search-based test generation technique to capture the current program behavior in the form of test cases. METAMON is supported in this task by metamorphic testing and self-consistency. An empirical evaluation against 9,482 pairs of code documentation and code snippets, generated using five open-source projects from Defects4J v2.0.1, shows that METAMON can classify the code-and-documentation inconsistencies with a precision of 0.72 and a recall of 0.48.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T00:42:50Z)
• Commit0: Library Generation from Scratch [77.38414688148006]
  Commit0 is a benchmark that challenges AI agents to write libraries from scratch. Agents are provided with a specification document outlining the library's API as well as a suite of interactive unit tests. Commit0 also offers an interactive environment where models receive static analysis and execution feedback on the code they generate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T18:11:30Z)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• RepoMasterEval: Evaluating Code Completion via Real-World Repositories [12.176098357240095]
  RepoMasterEval is a novel benchmark for evaluating code completion models constructed from real-world Python and TypeScript repositories. To improve test accuracy of model generated code, we employ mutation testing to measure the effectiveness of the test cases. Our empirical evaluation on 6 state-of-the-art models shows that test argumentation is critical in improving the accuracy of the benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T03:06:57Z)
• SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents [10.730852617039451]
  We investigate the capability of LLM-based Code Agents to formalize user issues into test cases. We propose a novel benchmark based on popular GitHub repositories, containing real-world issues, ground-truth bug-fixes, and golden tests. We find that LLMs generally perform surprisingly well at generating relevant test cases, with Code Agents designed for code repair exceeding the performance of systems designed for test generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T14:54:37Z)
• GPT-HateCheck: Can LLMs Write Better Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection? [50.53312866647302]
  HateCheck is a suite for testing fine-grained model functionalities on synthesized data. We propose GPT-HateCheck, a framework to generate more diverse and realistic functional tests from scratch. Crowd-sourced annotation demonstrates that the generated test cases are of high quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T10:02:01Z)
• Observation-based unit test generation at Meta [52.4716552057909]
  TestGen automatically generates unit tests, carved from serialized observations of complex objects, observed during app execution. TestGen has landed 518 tests into production, which have been executed 9,617,349 times in continuous integration, finding 5,702 faults. Our evaluation reveals that, when carving its observations from 4,361 reliable end-to-end tests, TestGen was able to generate tests for at least 86% of the classes covered by end-to-end tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T00:34:39Z)
• PyTester: Deep Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-Testcase Generation [20.441921569948562]
  Test-driven development (TDD) mandates writing test cases based on requirements before writing the actual code. While writing test cases is the centerpiece of TDD, it is time-consuming, expensive, and often shunned by developers. We introduce PyTester, a Text-to-Testcase generation approach that can automatically generate correct, executable, complete, and effective test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-15T10:21:58Z)
• CAT-LM: Training Language Models on Aligned Code And Tests [19.526181671936243]
  Testing is an integral part of the software development process. Yet, writing tests is time-consuming and therefore often neglected. We propose the Aligned Code And Tests Language Model (CAT-LM), a GPT-style language model with 2.7 Billion parameters, trained on a corpus of Python and Java projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T19:52:22Z)
• Prompting Code Interpreter to Write Better Unit Tests on Quixbugs Functions [0.05657375260432172]
  Unit testing is a commonly-used approach in software engineering to test the correctness and robustness of written code. In this study, we explore the effect of different prompts on the quality of unit tests generated by Code Interpreter. We find that the quality of the generated unit tests is not sensitive to changes in minor details in the prompts provided.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T20:36:23Z)
• A Static Evaluation of Code Completion by Large Language Models [65.18008807383816]
  Execution-based benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate functional correctness of model-generated code on simple programming problems. static analysis tools such as linters, which can detect errors without running the program, haven't been well explored for evaluating code generation models. We propose a static evaluation framework to quantify static errors in Python code completions, by leveraging Abstract Syntax Trees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T19:23:34Z)
• ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Models [90.10436771217243]
  We propose ReCode, a comprehensive robustness evaluation benchmark for code generation models. We customize over 30 transformations specifically for code on docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format. With human annotators, we verified that over 90% of the perturbed prompts do not alter the semantic meaning of the original prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T14:11:31Z)
• CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests [49.622590050797236]
  We explore the use of pre-trained language models to automatically generate test cases. CodeT executes the code solutions using the generated test cases, and then chooses the best solution. We evaluate CodeT on five different pre-trained models with both HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-21T10:18:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.