Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Automated Test Generation for Medical Rules Web Services: A Case Study at the Cancer Registry of Norway

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.12805 v2 pith:SOLDUYV6 submitted 2023-08-24 cs.SE

Automated Test Generation for Medical Rules Web Services: A Case Study at the Cancer Registry of Norway

classification cs.SE
keywords rulesevomasterresultstestcoveragegurisoftwareaggregation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN) collects, curates, and manages data related to cancer patients in Norway, supported by an interactive, human-in-the-loop, socio-technical decision support software system. Automated software testing of this software system is inevitable; however, currently, it is limited in CRN's practice. To this end, we present an industrial case study to evaluate an AI-based system-level testing tool, i.e., EvoMaster, in terms of its effectiveness in testing CRN's software system. In particular, we focus on GURI, CRN's medical rule engine, which is a key component at the CRN. We test GURI with EvoMaster's black-box and white-box tools and study their test effectiveness regarding code coverage, errors found, and domain-specific rule coverage. The results show that all EvoMaster tools achieve a similar code coverage; i.e., around 19% line, 13% branch, and 20% method; and find a similar number of errors; i.e., 1 in GURI's code. Concerning domain-specific coverage, EvoMaster's black-box tool is the most effective in generating tests that lead to applied rules; i.e., 100% of the aggregation rules and between 12.86% and 25.81% of the validation rules; and to diverse rule execution results; i.e., 86.84% to 89.95% of the aggregation rules and 0.93% to 1.72% of the validation rules pass, and 1.70% to 3.12% of the aggregation rules and 1.58% to 3.74% of the validation rules fail. We further observe that the results are consistent across 10 versions of the rules. Based on these results, we recommend using EvoMaster's black-box tool to test GURI since it provides good results and advances the current state of practice at the CRN. Nonetheless, EvoMaster needs to be extended to employ domain-specific optimization objectives to improve test effectiveness further. Finally, we conclude with lessons learned and potential research directions, which we believe are generally applicable.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.