@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 {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 {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 {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}
}
