← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.14629 · v2
Executable but Unfaithful: Mock Object, Stub, and Assertion Generation by LLMs and Coding Agents
首次提交 2026-10-10 14:24
版本更新 2026-11-05 22:28
雷达观测 2026-11-06 12:09
摘要
Mocking is a foundational practice in unit testing, enabling developers to isolate the code under test by replacing real dependencies with simulated alternatives. Automating the generation of mock objects, stubs, and mock assertions has been a long-standing research goal. However, capture-and-replay approaches rely on recording the runtime behavior of actual dependencies. Evolutionary approaches such as StubCoder overcome this requirement but constrain generation to predefined symbol pools. Large language models (LLMs) and coding agents offer an alternative by generating mocking artifacts from source code without requiring recorded dependency executions or fixed symbol pools. Yet, no systematic study has evaluated their capabilities across all three artifact types. To address this gap, we construct MockBench, a benchmark comprising 165 mock artifact generation tasks from real-world Java and Python projects, with validated reference mock objects, stubs, and mock assertions. We evaluate six LLMs and three coding agents in terms of executability, behavior fidelity, and interaction-fault detection capability, complemented by comparisons with existing tools and sensitivity analysis. Experimental results show that LLMs and coding agents indeed have been the state-of-the-art techniques in mock-based testing. More specifically, compared with LLMs, coding agents substantially improve executability, while these gains do not consistently translate into higher behavior fidelity or better interaction-fault detection. Furthermore, we analyze 660 failures from LLMs and coding agents, and identify ten error types across the three artifact categories, revealing behavioral deviations that passing tests can conceal. Our findings highlight the challenges of mock artifact generation and provide practical guidance for both developers and researchers.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-05 22:28 · 最新观测版本
Executable but Unfaithful: Mock Object, Stub, and Assertion Generation by LLMs and Coding Agents
Mocking is a foundational practice in unit testing, enabling developers to isolate the code under test by replacing real dependencies with simulated alternatives. Automating the generation of mock objects, stubs, and mock assertions has been a long-standing research goal. However, capture-and-replay approaches rely on recording the runtime behavior of actual dependencies. Evolutionary approaches such as StubCoder overcome this requirement but constrain generation to predefined symbol pools. Large language models (LLMs) and coding agents offer an alternative by generating mocking artifacts from source code without requiring recorded dependency executions or fixed symbol pools. Yet, no systematic study has evaluated their capabilities across all three artifact types. To address this gap, we construct MockBench, a benchmark comprising 165 mock artifact generation tasks from real-world Java and Python projects, with validated reference mock objects, stubs, and mock assertions. We evaluate six LLMs and three coding agents in terms of executability, behavior fidelity, and interaction-fault detection capability, complemented by comparisons with existing tools and sensitivity analysis. Experimental results show that LLMs and coding agents indeed have been the state-of-the-art techniques in mock-based testing. More specifically, compared with LLMs, coding agents substantially improve executability, while these gains do not consistently translate into higher behavior fidelity or better interaction-fault detection. Furthermore, we analyze 660 failures from LLMs and coding agents, and identify ten error types across the three artifact categories, revealing behavioral deviations that passing tests can conceal. Our findings highlight the challenges of mock artifact generation and provide practical guidance for both developers and researchers.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗