Comparing logic coverage criteria on test case prioritization

Logic coverage criteria have been widely used in the testing of safety-critical software.In the past few years,fault-based logic coverage criteria have been studied intensively both in theory and in practice.However,there is a lack of authentic evidence of the comparison of fault-based logic coverage criteria with other logic coverage criteria,such as branch coverage and modified condition/decision coverage(MC/DC).In this paper,we present a comprehensive empirical study that compares these logic coverage criteria on test case prioritization,which is currently a hot topic in software testing.Several useful conclusions are drawn from our research:(1) Fine-grained coverage criteria are always more effective and efficient.(2) The effectiveness of fault-based logic coverage criteria is not significantly different from that of MC/DC in terms of statistics,but the former is more stable.(3) A random strategy is more effective than branch coverage if a certain number of test cases are redundant.