Equivalent mutants

Question

Equivalent mutants

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The topic is Equivalent mutants, a concept from mutation testing.
Option 1: 'Can't be covered' This suggests a claim about coverage of equivalent mutants. In mutation testing, coverage typically refers to executing tests that exercise code paths; however, an equivalent mutant behaves identically to the original program for all inputs, so no test input can distinguish it. Saying it 'can't be covered' misrepresents how coverage is measured and implies coverage properties that don’t align with the core idea of equivalence. 
Option 2: 'Can't be detected' This aligns with the standard definition of equivalent mutants: they perform identically to the original program for all possible inputs, so no test case can reveal a difference, making them undetectable by test suites. This statement captures the essence of the challenge posed by equivalent mutants. 
Option 3: 'Can be detected without assertions (raises exceptions)' This claim contradicts the fundamental property of equivalent mutants. If a mutant can be detected without assertions or by simply observing raised exceptions, it would indicate observable behavioral differences between the mutant and the original, which would violate the notion of equivalence. The term 'without assertions' adds a procedural slip, since detection requires observing behavioral outcomes, not a specific mechanism like assertions. 
Option 4: 'Will always be detected' This is incorrect because if a mutant is truly equivalent, no test will ever distinguish it from the original, so it cannot always be detected. Saying 'always detected' would imply a universal ability to reveal all equivalents, which is impossible in general since they are indistinguishable by construction. 
Putting the pieces together, the key idea is that an equivalent mutant cannot be distinguished from the original by any test case, hence the statement 'Can't be detected' correctly reflects the concept. The other options misstate coverage implications, the detection mechanism, or the fundamental property of equivalence, leading to incorrect conclusions about how equivalent mutants behave in mutation testing.

Equivalent mutants单项选择题

类似问题

In mutation testing, what does it mean for mutant A to subsume mutant B? (see https://edstem.org/au/courses/20753/lessons/79799/slides/539235)

This question has been re-marked. Mutation analysis

Your tool changes the arithmetic operator in x = a + b to x = a - b. The mutant is then evaluated using your test suite. Why does mutation testing apply this kind of change?

Which one of the following statements about mutant subsumption is correct?

Coupling effect means that

Competent programmer hypothesis is another name for

What is the difference between traditional fault seeding and mutation analysis?

Mutation analysis

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单