Hi Anton, which is the main differences with http://code.google.com/p/mutalk/ ? (if you happen to already know that project)
Thanks,
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Anton Gulenko < anton.gulenko@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
Dear Frank,
The MethodEngine project is not an implementation of method wrappers. The focus is on automatic (but also controlled) generation of program mutations. In fact, the MethodEngine can USE an implementation of method wrappers to inject a mutation into the program. It could also use other mechanisms like directly compiling the modified code or using AOP.
Best regards, Anton
2012/10/4 Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com:
On 4 October 2012 09:59, Anton Gulenko anton.gulenko@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
Dear Community,
We would like to announce a new Squeak Community Project by the Software Architecture Group, Hasso-Plattner-Institute. Our new MutationEngine is a library to inject random modifications (mutations) in order to insert defects into Smalltalk programs and to make them crash. With that, you can automatically check
and
evaluate the effectivity of your debugging and testing approaches. The MutationEngine also provides a safe clean up at the end so that your
Squeak
system is not affected after a critical mutation.
This looks very interesting. It's also about the third implementation of method wrappers that I've seen (the others being the in-image example, and ObjectsAsMethodsWrapper), and makes me wonder if we shouldn't have a single best-of-everything library for what's clearly a broadly useful tool.
frank
A description, setup instructions and a tutorial can be found in the
following
Wiki article:
https://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/trac/SqueakCommunityProjects/wiki/...
Best regards, Anton