Assigning the Test Case Priorities Using Butterfly Optimization Algorithm for Software Test

Assigning the Test Case Priorities Using Butterfly Optimization Algorithm for Software Test

Nagaraj V. Dharwadkar, Srikant Shetgar, Manoj Patil, Abhijeet P. Shah
Copyright: © 2022 |Pages: 15
DOI: 10.4018/IJSI.303577
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

Software maintenance is the longest process of SDLC. It continues with the distribution of applications till the software is not in operation. Software modifications are an unavoidable aspect of the life cycle of software growth. The optimization of software testing is still an important task, as the average percentage of detected failures (APFD), the average percentage of Branch Coverage detection (APBCD), and output of time are unsatisfactory in priority test cases. We also suggested in this document to give priority to test cases using Butterfly Algorithms optimally. We use Butterfly Algorithm with a fitness function specified with a similitude-distance model to optimise the ordering of test cases. Three testing suites selected from the software testing case repository experimented with within 3 benchmarking programmes. Our Test Case Prioritization technique (TCP) was seen better than current works with the Butterfly APFD Algorithm as the output matrix. Overall APFD results show Butterfly Algorithm being a successful competitor in TCP applications.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Software testing requires a long-running time and can be the costliest step of the software development process Reid, S. (2004). The checking of applications is understood as the least comprehensive aspect of the development process. Also, testing of applications is done over and over again, because of time limitations and resources it is often done in hurry. In light of this, the Test Case Prioritization application (TCP) has been stated to increase test viability in software tests (Rothermel et al., 1999) (Khatibsyarbini et al., 2017) (Khatibsyarbini et al., 2018) (Jiang & Chan, 2015). First stated by (Wong et al., 1997) is the priority test case strategy. However, this work has only prioritised test cases that have been selected. The method was suggested and tested in a more widespread sense by two scholars, Rothermel and Harold. An example of a Test Suite is defined in Table 1(Rothermel et al., 2001).

TCP attempts to order several test cases based on preferred properties for early optimisation (Rothermel et al., 1999), (Elbaum et al., 2002). It is also difficult in real-life challenges to assess which measurements potentially show defects. The priority measures for the test case, therefore, rely on various approaches and expected to improve earlier fault exploration in the early intensification of a certain process. The test case priority method has multiple aspects. Having been defined by (Singh et al., 2012) as eight wide dimensions. The TCP techniques were rooted in selection procedures, input and output sort based on their commonalities.

TCP can be accomplished by using string metrics that can differentiate between test cases in terms of character deviations and the priority of a pre-set fitness function. The present study in recent years seems to have prioritised test cases using only test case-generated information (Jiang & Chan, 2015), (Ledru et al., 2012), (Mei et al., 2014).

Table 1.
Test suite example
ijsi.303577.g01

TCP can be accomplished by using string metrics that can differentiate between test cases in terms of character deviations and the priority of a pre-set fitness function. The present study in recent years seems to have prioritised test cases using only test case-generated information (Jiang & Chan, 2015),(Ledru et al., 2012),(Mei et al., 2014). Software testers, for example, can prioritise test cases before device source code is accessible by using available information such as test case feedback. This lowers the evaluation time total. Right after the design process TCP can be started.There is space for progress in timecompliance(Khatibsyarbini et al., 2018),(Jiang & Chan, 2015), among the various TCP strategies suggested. Not only is this issue common for non-artificial intelligence applications in TCP, but also for most TCP applications for Artificial Intelligence (AI) that need improvement in particular for APFD and implementation time, as recent studies have pointed out (KHATIBSYARBINI et al., 2017), (Jiang & Chan, 2015), (Gao et al., 2015),(Parizi et al., 2015).

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 12: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 11: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2022): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2013)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing