AndroEvolve: Automated Update for Android Deprecated-API Usages

Haryono, Stefanus Agus; Thung, Ferdian; Lo, David; Jiang, Lingxiao; Lawall, Julia; Kang, Hong Jin; Serrano, Lucas; Muller, Gilles

doi:10.1109/icse-companion52605.2021.00021

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a given app, our fundamental assumption is that all incompatible APIs in the app are protected well with a check, which is already added by developers or existing static analysis tools. [32][33][34]38,39 CompatDroid first conducts static analysis and extracts feature constraints from it. CompatDroid then decompiles the target app and gets the smali codes by using Soot, 40 a static analysis and optimization framework for Android.…”

Section: Constraints Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So CompatDroid might fail to generate the test coverage for those closed‐source apps. The number of failures is acceptable in our experiment which is less than 5%. We assume that all incompatible APIs in the app are protected well with a check which is added by developers and static analysis tools, 32–34,38,39 and CompatDroid is to dynamically check the function logic of the app with the most efficient device set. However, existing approaches have false negatives and would miss some incompatible APIs, which might also induce compatible issues.…”

Section: Limitations and Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

APP constraint analysis approach to select mobile devices for compatibility crowdtesting

Hui¹,

Zheng

2022

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The compatibility issues caused by Android fragmentation have become a vital task in the development of Android applications. To locate those issues, thousand of crowd testers run apps on different devices with different configurations to achieve the largest coverage, which might be costly and time‐consuming. Since existing approaches to selecting optimal devices are device‐side analysis without the information of the internal structures of apps, app‐side analysis that flags the essential devices for testers has remained elusive. To mitigate this gap of compatibility crowdtesting, this paper proposes an app constraint analysis approach named CompatDroid to generate the optimal device set to guide crowd testers. By evaluating 46 benchmark apps on 14 SDK versions, the optimal device sets are successfully generated, and CompatDroid only needs no more than 7 Android versions to achieve almost the same code coverage (i.e., 33.13%) testing on all 14 android versions (i.e., 34.65%) in 36 of 46 apps, which indicates that it can drastically reduce the consumption of test resources while losing little test coverage. On a larger dataset, CompatDroid successfully analyzes 98.3% of 645 apps, in which the median number of the optimal SDK versions set is 2.5 versions, and 68.92% of those apps contain the constraints of SDK version (i.e., SDK version) while 84.86% of them do not have the constraints of hardware information (i.e., model name and manufacture name).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Constraints Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

APP constraint analysis approach to select mobile devices for compatibility crowdtesting

Hui¹,

Zheng

2022

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not uncommon to have special demo tracks at the major software engineering conferences. For example, looking at their most recent (at the time of this writing) 2021 editions, this was the case for the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (e.g., Haryono et al, 2021;Vadlamani et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2021), the ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) (e.g., Ahmed et al, 2021;Heumüller et al, 2021;Horlings & Jongmans, 2021), the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) (e.g., Brida et al, 2021;Pham et al, 2021, Xie et al, 2021, and the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) (e.g., Hou et al, 2021;Natella & Pham, 2021;Ren et al, 2021). However, those are usually short 4-page papers, mainly meant to demonstrate the usefulness of these tools, with not much space available to share concrete technical solutions which can be re-used.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building an open-source system test generation tool: lessons learned and empirical analyses with EvoMaster

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in software testing often involves the development of software prototypes. Like any piece of software, there are challenges in the development, use and verification of such tools. However, some challenges are rather specific to this problem domain. For example, often these tools are developed by PhD students straight out of bachelor/master degrees, possibly lacking any industrial experience in software development. Prototype tools are used to carry out empirical studies, possibly studying different parameters of novel designed algorithms. Software scaffolding is needed to run large sets of experiments efficiently. Furthermore, when using AI-based techniques like evolutionary algorithms, care needs to be taken to deal with their randomness, which further complicates their verification. The aforementioned represent some of the challenges we have identified for this domain. In this paper, we report on our experience in building the open-source EvoMaster tool, which aims at system-level test case generation for enterprise applications. Many of the challenges we faced would be common to any researcher needing to build software testing tool prototypes. Therefore, one goal is that our shared experience here will boost the research community, by providing concrete solutions to many development challenges in the building of such kind of research prototypes. Ultimately, this will lead to increase the impact of scientific research on industrial practice.

show abstract

Two-Stage Patch Synthesis for API Migration from Single API Usage Example

Yamaguchi

Iwatsuka

2022

2022 29th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AndroEvolve: Automated Update for Android Deprecated-API Usages

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

APP constraint analysis approach to select mobile devices for compatibility crowdtesting

APP constraint analysis approach to select mobile devices for compatibility crowdtesting

Building an open-source system test generation tool: lessons learned and empirical analyses with EvoMaster

Two-Stage Patch Synthesis for API Migration from Single API Usage Example

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About