REVIEW 1 cited by
Empirical Comparison of Black-box Test Case Generation Tools for RESTful APIs
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In literature, we can find research tools to automatically generate test cases for RESTful APIs, addressing the specificity of this particular programming domain. However, no direct comparison of these tools is available to guide developers in deciding which tool best fits their REST API project. In this paper, we present the results of an empirical comparison of automated black-box test case generation approaches for REST APIs. We surveyed the available black-box testing tools that have been proposed in recent literature, finding four usable prototypes: RestTestGen, RESTler, bBOXRT and RESTest. We used these tools to generate test cases for 14 real-world REST services. Then, testing results have been analyzed and compared in terms of robustness (i.e., success rate) and test coverage. Among the considered tools, RESTler appears to be the most solid, able to successfully test all case studies (the other tools experienced crashes). Conversely, test cases generated by RestTestGen scored the highest coverage, suggesting that its testing strategy is the most effective in testing REST APIs.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Combining TSL and LLM to Automate REST API Testing: A Comparative Study
RestTSLLM combines Test Specification Language with few-shot prompting to generate REST API integration tests, and a comparative study finds Claude 3.5 Sonnet the best among eight LLMs.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.