@article {16565,
	title = {Code Coverage Differences of Java Bytecode and Source Code},
	journal = {Software Quality Journal},
	volume = {27},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {79-123},
	abstract = {Many software testing fields, like white-box testing, test case generation, test prioritization, and fault localization, depend on code coverage measurement. If used as an overall completeness measure, the minor inaccuracies of coverage data reported by a tool do not matter that much; however, in certain situations, they can lead to serious confusion. For example, a code element that is falsely reported as covered can introduce false confidence in the test. This work investigates code coverage measurement issues for the Java programming language. For Java, the prevalent approach to code coverage measurement is using bytecode instrumentation due to its various benefits over source code instrumentation. As we have experienced, bytecode instrumentation-based code coverage tools produce different results than source code instrumentation-based ones in terms of the reported items as covered. We report on an empirical study to compare the code coverage results provided by tools using the different instrumentation types for Java coverage measurement on the method level. In particular, we want to find out how much a bytecode instrumentation approach is inaccurate compared to a source code instrumentation method. The differences are systematically investigated both in quantitative (how much the outputs differ) and in qualitative terms (what the causes for the differences are). In addition, the impact on test prioritization and test suite reduction{\textemdash}a possible application of coverage measurement{\textemdash}is investigated in more detail as well.},
	keywords = {Code coverage, Coverage tools, Empirical study, Java bytecode instrumentation, select:quality, Source code instrumentation, White-box testing},
	doi = {10.1007/s11219-017-9389-z},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11219-017-9389-z$\#$citeas},
	author = {Ferenc Horv{\'a}th and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and D{\'a}vid Tengeri and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Tibor Gyimothy}
}
@article {16564,
	title = {Differences Between a Static and a Dynamic Test-to-Code Traceability Recovery Method},
	journal = {Software Quality Journal},
	volume = {27},
	year = {2018},
	month = {06/2019},
	pages = {797-822},
	abstract = {Recovering test-to-code traceability links may be required in virtually every phase of development. This task might seem simple for unit tests thanks to two fundamental unit testing guidelines: isolation (unit tests should exercise only a single unit) and separation (they should be placed next to this unit). However, practice shows that recovery may be challenging because the guidelines typically cannot be fully followed. Furthermore, previous works have already demonstrated that fully automatic test-to-code traceability recovery for unit tests is virtually impossible in a general case. In this work, we propose a semi-automatic method for this task, which is based on computing traceability links using static and dynamic approaches, comparing their results and presenting the discrepancies to the user, who will determine the final traceability links based on the differences and contextual information. We define a set of discrepancy patterns, which can help the user in this task. Additional outcomes of analyzing the discrepancies are structural unit testing issues and related refactoring suggestions. For the static test-to-code traceability, we rely on the physical code structure, while for the dynamic, we use code coverage information. In both cases, we compute combined test and code clusters which represent sets of mutually traceable elements. We also present an empirical study of the method involving 8 non-trivial open source Java systems.},
	keywords = {Code coverage, refactoring, select:quality, Structural test smells, Test-to-code traceability, Traceability link recovery, Unit testing},
	doi = {10.1007/s11219-018-9430-x},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11219-018-9430-x},
	author = {Tam{\'a}s Gergely and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Ferenc Horv{\'a}th and B{\'e}la Vancsics and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyimothy}
}
@article {HGB17,
	title = {Code Coverage Differences of {Java} Bytecode and Source Code Instrumentation Tools},
	journal = {Software Quality Journal},
	year = {2017},
	publisher = {Springer US},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-017-9389-z},
	author = {Horv{\'a}th, Ferenc and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tengeri, D{\'a}vid and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BGB16b,
	title = {Are My Unit Tests in the Right Package?},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of 16th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM{\textquoteright}16)},
	year = {2016},
	month = {oct},
	pages = {137-146},
	author = {Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {TVB16,
	title = {Relating Code Coverage, Mutation Score and Test Suite Reducibility to Defect Density},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops: 11th International Workshop on Mutation Analysis (MUTATION{\textquoteright}16)},
	year = {2016},
	month = {apr},
	pages = {174-179},
	author = {Tengeri, D{\'a}vid and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Judit J{\'a}sz and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Vancsics, B{\'e}la and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BGB16a,
	title = {Using the City Metaphor for Visualizing Test-Related Metrics},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, the First International Workshop on Validating Software Tests (VST{\textquoteright}16)},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {17-20},
	author = {Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy}
}
@conference {BSB15,
	title = {{CodeMetropolis}: Eclipse over the City of Source Code},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM{\textquoteright}15)},
	year = {2015},
	month = {sep},
	pages = {271-276},
	author = {Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Szabolics, Attila and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des}
}
@conference {BAB15,
	title = {Identifying Wasted Effort in the Field via Developer Interaction Data},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 31th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME{\textquoteright}15), Industry Track},
	year = {2015},
	month = {sep},
	pages = {391-400},
	author = {Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Antal, G{\'a}bor and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and V{\'e}gh, {\'A}d{\'a}m Zolt{\'a}n}
}
@conference {BaB13b,
	title = {{CodeMetropolis} - a {Minecraft} based collaboration tool for developers},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT{\textquoteright}13), New Ideas or Emerging Results track},
	year = {2013},
	month = {sep},
	pages = {1-4},
	author = {Gerg{\H o} Balogh and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des}
}
@conference {BaB13a,
	title = {{CodeMetropolis} - code visualisation in {Minecraft}},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM{\textquoteright}13), Tool Track},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {127-132},
	author = {Gerg{\H o} Balogh and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des}
}
@booklet {TR2013001,
	title = {Survey on Testing Embedded Systems},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {University of Szeged, Department of Software Engineering \& University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences},
	type = {Technical Report},
	url = {http://cirene.sed.hu/sites/cirene.sed.hu/files/page_files/3.2-Survey-on-Testing-Embedded-Systems.pdf},
	author = {{\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Tam{\'a}s Gergely and Papp, Istv{\'a}n and Marinkovi{\'c}, Vladimir and Zlokolica, Vladimir and Gerg{\H o} Balogh and Bogn{\'a}r, Szabolcs and Kastelan, Ivan and Kova{\v c}evi{\'c}, Jelena and Muhi, Korn{\'e}l and Csaba Nagy and Popovi{\'c}, Miroslav and R{\'a}cz, R{\'o}bert and Istv{\'a}n Siket and Varga, P{\'e}ter}
}
@conference {16310,
	title = {Prediction of Software Development Modification Effort Enhanced by a Genetic Algorithm},
	year = {2012},
	author = {{\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and {\'A}. Z. V{\'e}gh and Gerg{\H o} Balogh}
}
@conference {16307,
	title = {Predictive Complex Event Processing},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 5th Balkan Conference in Informatics},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {26{\textendash}31},
	publisher = {ACM Press},
	organization = {ACM Press},
	address = {New York},
	author = {F{\"u}l{\"o}p, L.J. and T{\'o}th, G. and L{\'a}szl{\'o} Vid{\'a}cs and {\'A}rp{\'a}d Besz{\'e}des and Demeter, H. and Farkas, L. and Tibor Gyim{\'o}thy and Gerg{\H o} Balogh},
	editor = {M. Ivanovic and Z. Budimac}
}
