Mutation testing is one of the active techniques for testing its code. It is implemented by the replacement of the syntax of a program by another piece of code. This new version of the code is known as a mutant as is the most crucial part for testing the code. An effective test set is necessary to differentiate the mutant from the original program. In this paper we have presented a semantic mutation testing tool in python which works on semantics of python language than the traditional way of testing. In semantic mutation, a particular language is modified to create the mutant. Using SMT-P that is semantic mutation testing using python, we have inspected the efficiency of test cases on both traditional and semantic mutation operators. Comparison of traditional and semantic mutation testing operators in same test cases has been found to be quite useful and proves the usefulness of Semantic based testing over traditional one.

Mutation testing, SMT (Semantic mutation testing), SMT-P (Semantic mutation testing tool in python), Language

[1] W.E. Howden, Weak mutation testing and completeness of test sets, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 8 (4) (1982) 371–379
[2] A.J. Offutt, Investigations of the software testing coupling effect, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 1 (1) (1992) 3–18.
[3] R.G. Hamlet, Testing programs with the aid of a compiler, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3 (1977) 279–290.
[4] K.S.H.T. Wah, a theoretical study of fault coupling, Journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 10 (1) (2000) 3–45.
[5] A.J. Offutt, J. Pan, Detecting equivalent mutants and the feasible path problem, in: Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, COMPASS 1996, IEEE Computer Society Press, Gaithersburg, MD, 1996, pp. 224–236.
[6] R.M. Hierons, M. Harman, S. Danicic, using program slicing to assist in the detection of equivalent mutants, Journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 9 (4) (1999) 233–262.
[7] J.A. Clark, H. Dan, R.M. Hierons, Semantic mutation testing, in: Fourth Workshop on Mutation Analysis, 2010, pp. 100–109.
[8] J. Offutt, J. Pan, automatically detecting equivalent mutants and infeasible paths, Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability 7 (3) (1997) 165–192.
[9] R.A. DeMillo, R.J. Lipton, F.G. Sayward, Hints on test data selection: help for the practical programmer, IEEE Computer 11 (4) (1978) 31–41
[10] A.J. Offutt, J.H. Hayes, A semantic model of program faults, in: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 1996 1996, pp. 195–200.
[11] “Pycharm python IDE” https://www. jetbrains. com /pycharm/.
[12] L. Hatton, Safer C: Developing Software in High-integrity and Safety-critical Systems, McGraw–Hill, 1994.