Finished task 1

project_task_sheets/phase_05/project_phase05_tasks/Makefile

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ latexmkflags =
 
 all : $(target)
 
-dev : latexmkflags = -pvc
+dev : latexmkflags = -pvc -interaction=nonstopmode
 dev : all
 
 $(target) : $(package)

project_task_sheets/phase_05/project_phase05_tasks/Solution_Phase05_MichaelChen.tex

@@ -5,6 +5,15 @@
 \usepackage{listings}
 \usepackage{enumitem}
 \usepackage{subcaption}
+\usepackage[acronym]{glossaries}
+
+\newacronym{bnf}{BNF}{Backus-Naur form}
+\newacronym{fsm}{FSM}{finite state machine}
+\newacronym{tsc}{TSC}{terminal symbol coverage}
+\newacronym{pdc}{PDC}{production coverage}
+\newacronym{dc}{DC}{derivation coverage}
+\newacronym{moc}{MOC}{mutation operator coverage}
+\newacronym{mpc}{MPC}{mutation production coverage}
 
 \usepackage{pgf}
 \usepackage{tikz}
@@ -63,8 +72,8 @@
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
-\def\name{[Add name here]}
+\def\name{Michael Chen}
-\def\group{[Add group here]}
+\def\group{Group 01 (fastjson)}
 
 \begin{document}
 \projectinfo{5}{Software Testing - Syntax Coverage\small}{\today}{\name}{\group}
@@ -79,32 +88,57 @@
     \begin{enumerate}
       \item \textit{Production Rule}, \textit{Generator}, and \textit{Terminal}
       \begin{answer}
-      [TODO: Add answer here]
+      A Grammar is a set of \textit{words} or, as called here, \textit{strings}, that it accepts. Grammars can be described in different ways such as set notation, regular expressions, or in \gls{bnf}. \Gls{bnf} is set of production rules, also called rewrite rules, that map a set of symbols to a single symbol which is the name of the production rule. Symbols can be either non-terminals which represent non-trivial sytactic constructs such as loops or declarations in programming, while terminal symbols represent tokens, such as integer or string literals in programming languages. A generator is a \gls{fsm} that, given a grammar in \gls{bnf}, can generate a word of the grammar by recursively applying productions on the starting symbol until the syntax tree's leafs are only terminal symbols.
       \end{answer}
 
       \item \textit{Mutant}, \textit{Ground String}, and \textit{Mutation Operator}
       \begin{answer}
-      [TODO: Add answer here]
+      A ground string is a string that is accepted by a grammar. In other terms it is a string where we already know that a proof exists, that shows the string is in the grammar (ground truth). We can now change this string a little bit by applying specific rules, called mutation operators, that generate new strings that may or may not be accepted by the grammar, called mutants.
       \end{answer}
 
-        \item \textit{RIP Model}
+      \item \textit{RIP Model}
-        \begin{answer}
+      \begin{answer}
-        [TODO: Add answer here]
+      The RIP model declares three requirements that are fulfilled when a failure occurrs. If all three of these are true, only then a failure can be detected. Firstly, the location of the fault in the code must be reached (\textbf{Reachability}), then, the program's internal state must be corrupted, i.e. an error occurred (\textbf{Infection}) and, finally, the error must have propagated to the program's output where the failure can then be observed (\textbf{Propagation}).
-        \end{answer}
+      \end{answer}
     \end{enumerate}
     \item Name and describe \textit{2 syntax-based coverage criteria}. Does one of these two criteria subsume the other? Explain why, or provide a counterexample.
     \begin{answer}
-    [TODO: Add answer here]
+    Two criteria on mutation operators are \gls{moc} and \gls{mpc}. \Gls{moc} introduces test requirements for every mutation operator, where the test is applied to the mutant created by the operator. This is trivially subsumed by the \gls{mpc}, which in addition to that, requires that for every production in the grammar, which the operator is applicable to, a test requirement is added.
     \end{answer}
 
     \item What does it mean to \textit{"kill a mutant"}? Explain the concept with an own code example.
     \begin{answer}
-    [TODO: Add answer here]
+    A test (strongly) kills a mutant if all three conditions of the RIP model are satisfied for it's test execution. Consider the following mutated \texttt{max} program:
+    \begin{lstlisting}[language=C]
+    int max(int a, int b) {
+      // return a > b ? a : b; // original
+      return a < b ? a : b; // mutant
+    }
+    \end{lstlisting}
+
+    A test that kills this mutant could be the following:
+    \begin{lstlisting}[language=C]
+    void kill_max_mutation() {
+      assert(max(1, 3) == 3);
+    }
+    \end{lstlisting}
+
+    \begin{enumerate}
+      \item This test satisfies the reachability requirement trivially.
+      \item The program is infected because the changed operator causes the program to select the wrong branch of the ternary expression.
+      \item And finally the error propagated to the function output, in this case also trivially because the incorrect value is directly returned.
+    \end{enumerate}
+    Because the RIP model is satisfied the mutation is successfully killed by the test.
     \end{answer}
 
     \item Name and describe the \textit{4 different classified types} of mutants in the context of mutant killing.
     \begin{answer}
-    [TODO: Add answer here]
+    \begin{itemize}
+      \item \textbf{Dead mutants} have been successfully killed by a test case.
+      \item \textbf{Trivial mutants} are killed by any any test case in that the variation is so severe, that the program will almost certainly result in a failure.
+      \item \textbf{Stillborn mutants} cannot be killed by any test case because they are syntactically illegal, i.e. cannot be executed.
+      \item \textbf{Equivalent mutants} can also not be killed, because the mutation does not cause the program to behave differently.
+    \end{itemize}
     \end{answer}
 
 \end{enumerate}