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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > > On 4 October 2012 09:59, Anton Gulenko > > <[email protected]> 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/mutations > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Anton > >> > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
