Exploring Pseudo-Testedness: Empirically Evaluating Extreme Mutation Testing at the Statement Level

Extreme mutation testing (XMT) detects undesirable pseudo-testedness in a program by deleting the method bodies of covered code and observing whether the test suite can detect their absence. Even though XMT may identify test limitations, its coarse granularity means that it may overlook testing inadequacies, particularly at the statement level, that developers may want to address before committing the resources demanded by traditional mutation testing. This paper proposes the use of the statement deletion mutation operator (SDL) to uncover pseudo-tested statements in addition to complete methods. In an experimental evaluation involving four frequently-studied, large, Apache Commons Java projects and 23 projects randomly selected from the Maven Central Repository, we found 722 different cases of pseudo-tested statements. Critically, we discovered that 48% of these statements exist outside of pseudo-tested methods, meaning that the detection of testing deficiencies related to these statements would normally be left to traditional, resource-intensive, mutation testing. Also, we found that a popular Java mutation testing tool would not have mutated some of the statement types involved in the first place, effectively rendering these issues, hitherto, hard to discover. This paper therefore demonstrates that XMT alone is insufficient and should be combined with pseudo-tested statement evaluation to pinpoint subtle, yet important, testing oversights that a developer should tackle before applying traditional mutation testing.