Issue2Test: Generating Reproducing Test Cases from Issue Reports

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16320v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:44:00 GMT
• Title: Issue2Test: Generating Reproducing Test Cases from Issue Reports
• Authors: Noor Nashid, Islem Bouzenia, Michael Pradel, Ali Mesbah,
• Abstract summary: A crucial step toward successfully solving an issue is creating a test case that accurately reproduces the issue.<n>This paper presents Issue2Test, an LLM-based technique for automatically generating a reproducing test case for a given issue report.<n>We evaluate Issue2Test on the SWT-bench-lite dataset, where it successfully reproduces 30.4 of the issues.
• Score: 21.28421180698285
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated tools for solving GitHub issues are receiving significant attention by both researchers and practitioners, e.g., in the form of foundation models and LLM-based agents prompted with issues. A crucial step toward successfully solving an issue is creating a test case that accurately reproduces the issue. Such a test case can guide the search for an appropriate patch and help validate whether the patch matches the issue's intent. However, existing techniques for issue reproduction show only moderate success. This paper presents Issue2Test, an LLM-based technique for automatically generating a reproducing test case for a given issue report. Unlike automated regression test generators, which aim at creating passing tests, our approach aims at a test that fails, and that fails specifically for the reason described in the issue. To this end, Issue2Test performs three steps: (1) understand the issue and gather context (e.g., related files and project-specific guidelines) relevant for reproducing it; (2) generate a candidate test case; and (3) iteratively refine the test case based on compilation and runtime feedback until it fails and the failure aligns with the problem described in the issue. We evaluate Issue2Test on the SWT-bench-lite dataset, where it successfully reproduces 30.4 of the issues, achieving a 40.1% relative improvement over the best existing technique. Our evaluation also shows that Issue2test reproduces 28 issues that seven prior techniques fail to address, contributing a total of 68.3% of all issues reproduced by any tool. We envision our approach to contribute to enhancing the overall progress in the important task of automatically solving GitHub issues.

Related papers

• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive. We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons. The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)
• Unveiling Pitfalls: Understanding Why AI-driven Code Agents Fail at GitHub Issue Resolution [22.03052751722933]
  Python execution errors during the issue resolution phase correlate with lower resolution rates and increased reasoning overheads. We have identified the most prevalent errors -- such as ModuleNotFoundError and TypeError -- and highlighted particularly challenging errors like OSError and database-related issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-16T06:24:51Z)
• Otter: Generating Tests from Issues to Validate SWE Patches [12.353105297285802]
  This paper introduces Otter, an LLM-based solution for generating tests from issues. Otter augments LLMs with rule-based analysis to check and repair their outputs, and introduces a novel self-reflective action planning stage. Experiments show Otter outperforming state-of-the-art systems for generating tests from issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T22:41:31Z)
• Learning to Generate Unit Tests for Automated Debugging [52.63217175637201]
  Unit tests (UTs) play an instrumental role in assessing code correctness as well as providing feedback to large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose UTGen, which teaches LLMs to generate unit test inputs that reveal errors along with their correct expected outputs.<n>We show that UTGen outperforms other LLM-based baselines by 7.59% based on a metric measuring the presence of both error-revealing UT inputs and correct UT outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T18:51:43Z)
• AugmenTest: Enhancing Tests with LLM-Driven Oracles [2.159639193866661]
  AugmenTest is an approach leveraging Large Language Models to infer correct test oracles based on available documentation of the software under test.<n>AugmenTest includes four variants: Simple Prompt, Extended Prompt, RAG with a generic prompt (without the context of class or method under test), and RAG with Simple Prompt, each offering different levels of contextual information to the LLMs.<n>Results show that in the most conservative scenario, AugmenTest's Extended Prompt consistently outperformed the Simple Prompt, achieving a success rate of 30% for generating correct assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T07:45:41Z)
• TDD-Bench Verified: Can LLMs Generate Tests for Issues Before They Get Resolved? [11.762669773233474]
  Test-driven development (TDD) is the practice of writing tests first and coding later. This paper introduces TDD-Bench Verified, a high-quality benchmark suite of 449 issues mined from real-world GitHub code repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T22:38:05Z)
• SUPER: Evaluating Agents on Setting Up and Executing Tasks from Research Repositories [55.161075901665946]
  Super aims to capture the realistic challenges faced by researchers working with Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) research repositories. Our benchmark comprises three distinct problem sets: 45 end-to-end problems with annotated expert solutions, 152 sub problems derived from the expert set that focus on specific challenges, and 602 automatically generated problems for larger-scale development. We show that state-of-the-art approaches struggle to solve these problems with the best model (GPT-4o) solving only 16.3% of the end-to-end set, and 46.1% of the scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:37:48Z)
• TestART: Improving LLM-based Unit Testing via Co-evolution of Automated Generation and Repair Iteration [7.833381226332574]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating unit test cases.<n>We propose TestART, a novel unit test generation method.<n>TestART improves LLM-based unit testing via co-evolution of automated generation and repair iteration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-06T10:52:41Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Efficient Failure Analysis in Game Development [47.618236610219554]
  This paper proposes a new approach to automatically identify which change in the code caused a test to fail. The method leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to associate error messages with the corresponding code changes causing the failure. Our approach reaches an accuracy of 71% in our newly created dataset, which comprises issues reported by developers at EA over a period of one year.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T09:21:50Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction [14.444294152595429]
  The number of tests added in open source repositories due to issues was about 28% of the corresponding project test suite size. We propose LIBRO, a framework that uses Large Language Models (LLMs), which have been shown to be capable of performing code-related tasks. Our evaluation of LIBRO shows that, on the widely studied Defects4J benchmark, LIBRO can generate failure reproducing test cases for 33% of all studied cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-23T10:50:47Z)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

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.