IntentTester: Intent-Driven Multi-agent Framework for Cross-Library Test Migration

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25588v1
• Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 08:59:01 GMT
• Title: IntentTester: Intent-Driven Multi-agent Framework for Cross-Library Test Migration
• Abstract summary: We present IntentTester, a framework for intent-driven test reuse.<n>We evaluate IntentTester on nine open-source projects across three domains (JSON, HTML, and Time) and two languages (Java and Python)
• Score: 14.0813614333238
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Unit tests capture both functional checks and domain-specific knowledge, but this knowledge remains locked within individual projects and is rarely reused across libraries with overlapping functionality. Existing migration techniques based on structural code mappings (e.g., API signatures) often break down under divergent designs or cross-language settings, resulting in non-executable migrated tests. In this paper, we present IntentTester, a multi-agent framework for intent-driven test reuse. Instead of translating raw code, IntentTester abstracts tests into a language-agnostic Test Description Language (TDL), aligns them with semantically related entities and dependencies in a repository graph, and synthesizes executable tests through LLM-guided reasoning and iterative validation. This design enables cross-library and cross-language migration without manual intervention, producing migrated tests that existing structure-mapping approaches cannot achieve. We evaluate IntentTester on nine open-source projects across three domains (JSON, HTML, and Time) and two languages (Java and Python). IntentTester generates 2,776 syntactically correct tests with 85\% correctness; in comparison, the two baselines achieve 51\% and 43\%. Among them, 2,410 tests executed successfully, yielding a 74\% effectiveness rate. Beyond higher success rates, IntentTester also surfaced previously unknown defects including stack overflows, null dereferences, and parsing inconsistencies, several of which have been acknowledged or patched by maintainers. Our results show that intent-driven migration shifts the focus from code mappings to semantic alignment, allowing practical cross-library and cross-language test reuse while improving test quality and exposing implementation flaws.

Related papers

• ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents [68.42713285082912]
  Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue.<n>We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it.<n>The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:53:37Z)
• The Polyglot's Dilemma: Conformance Testing a Dozen Specs in as Many Languages [0.0]
  MongoDB maintains client libraries in a dozen programming languages.<n>Over eleven years, we developed a specification-based testing approach.<n>We describe the evolution from many ad-hoc formats to a Unified Test Format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T17:32:47Z)
• SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Tests [5.3138104073306005]
  Distinguishing semantic-preserving commits from changing ones remains an open challenge in software repository mining.<n>SemaDiff is a novel approach for identifying semantic-preserving commits through comparison of similar test execution on pre- and post-commit versions.<n>SemaDiff distinguishes accurately semantic-preserving from -- changing commits in about 76% of the cases, with a 100% precision in semantic-changing commit detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T12:23:22Z)
• The Unlearning Mirage: A Dynamic Framework for Evaluating LLM Unlearning [54.67958855362658]
  We propose a dynamic framework that stress tests unlearning using complex structured queries.<n>Our approach first elicits knowledge from the target model (pre-unlearning) and constructs targeted probes, ranging from simple queries to multi-hop chains.<n>Our framework enables practical and scalable evaluation of unlearning methods without the need for manual construction of forget test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T19:51:33Z)
• Testing Framework Migration with Large Language Models [0.29332247106953097]
  Python developers rely on two major testing frameworks: textttunittest and textttPytest.<n>We investigate the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate test framework migrations from textttunittest to textttPytest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T01:04:09Z)
• Intention-Driven Generation of Project-Specific Test Cases [45.2380093475221]
  We propose IntentionTest, which generates project-specific tests given the description of validation intention.<n>We extensively evaluate IntentionTest against state-of-the-art baselines (DA, ChatTester, and EvoSuite) on 4,146 test cases from 13 open-source projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T08:35:04Z)
• ProjectTest: A Project-level LLM Unit Test Generation Benchmark and Impact of Error Fixing Mechanisms [48.43237545197775]
  Unit test generation has become a promising and important use case of LLMs.<n>ProjectTest is a project-level benchmark for unit test generation covering Python, Java, and JavaScript.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:24:30Z)
• Commit0: Library Generation from Scratch [77.38414688148006]
  Commit0 is a benchmark that challenges AI agents to write libraries from scratch.<n>Agents are provided with a specification document outlining the library's API as well as a suite of interactive unit tests.<n> 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)
• DiffSpec: Differential Testing with LLMs using Natural Language Specifications and Code Artifacts [7.019166148885954]
  We introduce DiffSpec, a framework for generating differential tests using prompt chaining.<n>We demonstrate DiffSpec's efficacy on two different (extensively tested) systems, eBPF runtimes and Wasm validators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:11:14Z)
• Zero-Shot Cross-lingual Semantic Parsing [56.95036511882921]
  We study cross-lingual semantic parsing as a zero-shot problem without parallel data for 7 test languages. We propose a multi-task encoder-decoder model to transfer parsing knowledge to additional languages using only English-Logical form paired data. Our system frames zero-shot parsing as a latent-space alignment problem and finds that pre-trained models can be improved to generate logical forms with minimal cross-lingual transfer penalty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T16:08:43Z)

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.