Intention-Driven Generation of Project-Specific Test Cases

July 28, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Binhang Qi, Yun Lin, Xinyi Weng, Yuhuan Huang, Chenyan Liu, Hailong Sun, Zhi Jin, Jin Song Dong arXiv ID 2507.20619 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 2 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Test cases are valuable assets for maintaining software quality. State-of-the-art automated test generation techniques typically focus on maximizing program branch coverage or translating focal methods into test code. However, in contrast to branch coverage or code-to-test translation, practical tests are written out of the need to validate whether a requirement has been fulfilled. Specifically, each test usually reflects a developer's validation intention for a program function, regarding (1) what is the test scenario of a program function? and (2) what is expected behavior under such a scenario? Without taking such intention into account, generated tests are less likely to be adopted in practice. In this work, we propose IntentionTest, which generates project-specific tests given the description of validation intention. The design is motivated by two insights: (1) rationale insight: the description of validation intention regarding scenario description and behavioral expectation, compared to coverage and focal code, carries more crucial information about what to test; and (2) technical insight: practical test code exhibits high duplication, indicating that existing tests are highly reusable for how to test. Therefore, IntentionTest adopts a retrieval-and-edit manner. We extensively evaluate IntentionTest against state-of-the-art baselines (DA, ChatTester, and EvoSuite) on 4,146 test cases from 13 open-source projects. The experimental results show that, with a given validation intention, IntentionTest can (1) generate tests far more semantically relevant to the ground-truth tests by (i) killing 39.0% more common mutants and (ii) calling up to 66.8% more project-specific APIs; and (2) generate 21.3% more successful passing tests.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted