Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Background 2 Background 3 Approach and 3.1 Differential Testing for XML Processors 3 Approach and 3.1 Differential Testing for XML Processors 3.2 XPath Expression Generation 3.2 XPath Expression Generation 3.3 XML Generation 3.3 XML Generation 4 Evaluation 4 Evaluation 4.1 Effectiveness 4.1 Effectiveness 4.2 Efficiency 4.2 Efficiency 4.3 Comparison to the State of the Art 4.3 Comparison to the State of the Art 4.4 Analysis of BaseX Historical Bug Reports 4.4 Analysis of BaseX Historical Bug Reports 5 Related Work 5 Related Work 6 Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References 6 Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References 4 EVALUATION In the evaluation, we sought to investigate whether our technique is effective and efficient in finding bugs for XPath expression processors. Specifically, we were interested in the following questions: Q1. Is XPress effective in finding new XPath-related bugs in established XML processors (see Section 4.1)? Q1. Q2. Does the query generation approach described in Section 3.2 improve the bug-finding efficiency of XPress with respect to real-world baselines and a random generation approach (see Section 4.2)? Q2. Q3. How does the differential testing test oracle compare to the state-of-the-art oracle (see Section 4.3)? Q3. Q4. What kind of XPath-related bugs might be overlooked by XPress (see Section 4.4)? Q4. Tested XML Processors. We tested our method on six mature, well-known, and actively maintained XPath processors: BaseX, exist-DB, Saxon-HE, PostgreSQL, libXML2, and a commercial DBMS, whose name we have omitted due to its “DeWitt clause” [24]. We started testing on BaseX 10.4, eXist-DB 6.2.0, Saxon Home Edition 12.2, PostgreSQL version 15, and libXML2 commit version 106153. As bugs were resolved, we constantly updated to the latest available version. We selected BaseX, eXist-DB, and Saxon to be our main testing targets, because they all implement the more recent XPath 3.0 standard. BaseX ranks as the most popular Native XML DBMS on the DB-Engines Ranking [9]. eXist-DB is widely applied in data centers, systems, and platforms, as referenced on the eXist-DB reference page [11]. Saxon is an in-memory processor and therefore is not included in the DB-Engines rankings. However, the official website of Saxon [16] states: "More than 170 software vendors have built Saxon into their own applications" and "6 of the world’s top 10 software vendors are Saxonica clients", demonstrating that Saxon is a widely-used and popular XML processor. For XPath 1.0 standard implementations, we tested PostgreSQL, libXML2, and the commercial DBMS. PostgreSQL is a popular open-source DBMS, which ranks 4 on the DB-Engines ranking and has 12.8k stars on GitHub. libXML2 is a software library developed for the GNOME project. The commercial DBMS is often considered the most popular and important DBMS overall, as also reflected in various rankings. All XML processors have been actively maintained for over 15 years. Tested XML Processors. Experimental setup. We implemented the tool, XPress, in around 8,000 LOC in Java. In our experiments, we configured it to generate XML documents that contain 1 to 50 nodes. We create half as many node templates as element nodes. For each XML document, we generated 200 XPath expressions. Each XPath expression had an equal possibility to hold 1 to 7 sections. We set one predicate to hold at most 10 subjects (see Section 3.2) and the depth of the predicate tree to be at most 10. We used the default settings of each XML processor. We conducted all our experiments using a personal computer with a 64-Core AMD EPYC 7763 CPU at 2.45GHz and 512GB memory running Ubuntu 22.04. Experimental setup. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Shuxin Li, Southern University of Science and Technology China and Work done during an internship at the National University of Singapore (shuxin.li.lv@gmail.com);
(2) Manuel Rigger, National University of Singapore Singapore (rigger@nus.edu.sg). Authors: Authors: (1) Shuxin Li, Southern University of Science and Technology China and Work done during an internship at the National University of Singapore (shuxin.li.lv@gmail.com); (2) Manuel Rigger, National University of Singapore Singapore (rigger@nus.edu.sg).

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Abstract

GitHub

Southern

Showing XPress’ Effectiveness Through the Number of Bugs Found, Developer Feedback, etc.

How We Generated XML Documents: Tree Creation and Node Generation

Read My Stories

Too Long; Didn't Read

Make resilience your competitive advantage

Is Our Technique Effective in Finding Bugs for XPath Expression Processors? An Investigation

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Presenting A General Automated Testing Approach for Detecting XPath-Related Logic Bugs

08/05/2018: Biggest Stories in the Cryptosphere

10 Best Online Courses to Learn Oracle and PL/SQL for Beginners

2019 Database Trends – SQL vs. NoSQL, Top Databases, Single vs. Multiple Database Use

4 Decentralized Oracle Platforms that Bridge Real-World Data to the Blockchain

Presenting A General Automated Testing Approach for Detecting XPath-Related Logic Bugs

08/05/2018: Biggest Stories in the Cryptosphere

10 Best Online Courses to Learn Oracle and PL/SQL for Beginners

2019 Database Trends – SQL vs. NoSQL, Top Databases, Single vs. Multiple Database Use

4 Decentralized Oracle Platforms that Bridge Real-World Data to the Blockchain

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps