  Automated tests play an important role in software evolution because they can
rapidly detect faults introduced during changes. In practice, code-coverage
metrics are often used as criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of test suites
with focus on regression faults. However, code coverage only expresses which
portion of a system has been executed by tests, but not how effective the tests
actually are in detecting regression faults. Our goal was to evaluate the
validity of code coverage as a measure for test effectiveness. To do so, we
conducted an empirical study in which we applied an extreme mutation testing
approach to analyze the tests of open-source projects written in Java. We
assessed the ratio of pseudo-tested methods (those tested in a way such that
faults would not be detected) to all covered methods and judged their impact on
the software project. The results show that the ratio of pseudo-tested methods
is acceptable for unit tests but not for system tests (that execute large
portions of the whole system). Therefore, we conclude that the coverage metric
is only a valid effectiveness indicator for unit tests.

Software Engineering