Abstract:Unit tests play a key role in ensuring the correctness of software. However, manually creating unit tests is a laborious task, motivating the need for automation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been applied to various aspects of software development, including their suggested use for automated generation of unit tests, but while requiring additional training or few-shot learning on examples of existing tests. This paper presents a large-scale empirical evaluation on the effectiveness of LLMs for automated unit test generation without requiring additional training or manual effort. Concretely, we consider an approach where the LLM is provided with prompts that include the signature and implementation of a function under test, along with usage examples extracted from documentation. Furthermore, if a generated test fails, our approach attempts to generate a new test that fixes the problem by re-prompting the model with the failing test and error message. We implement our approach in <sc>TestPilot</sc>, an adaptive LLM-based test generation tool for JavaScript that automatically generates unit tests for the methods in a given project's API. We evaluate <sc>TestPilot</sc> using OpenAI's <italic>gpt3.5-turbo</italic> LLM on 25 npm packages with a total of 1,684 API functions. The generated tests achieve a median statement coverage of 70.2% and branch coverage of 52.8%. In contrast, the state-of-the feedback-directed JavaScript test generation technique, Nessie, achieves only 51.3% statement coverage and 25.6% branch coverage. Furthermore, experiments with excluding parts of the information included in the prompts show that all components contribute towards the generation of effective test suites. We also find that 92.8% of <sc>TestPilot</sc>'s generated tests have <inline-formula><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\leq$</tex-math><alternatives><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math><inline-graphic xlink:href="schaefer-ieq1-3334955.gif"/></alternatives></inline-formula> 50% similarity with existing tests (as measured by normalized edit distance), with none of them being exact copies. Finally, we run <sc>TestPilot</sc> with two additional LLMs, OpenAI's older <italic>code-cushman-002</italic> LLM and <italic>StarCoder</italic>, an LLM for which the training process is publicly documented. Overall, we observed similar results with the former (68.2% median statement coverage), and somewhat worse results with the latter (54.0% median statement coverage), suggesting that the effectiveness of the approach is influenced by the size and training set of the LLM, but does not fundamentally depend on the specific model.

TESTEVAL: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Test Case Generation

TestBench: Evaluating Class-Level Test Case Generation Capability of Large Language Models

On the Evaluation of Large Language Models in Unit Test Generation

Large-scale, Independent and Comprehensive study of the power of LLMs for test case generation

Optimizing Search-Based Unit Test Generation with Large Language Models: an Empirical Study

Large Language Models as Test Case Generators: Performance Evaluation and Enhancement

Exploring Automated Assertion Generation Via Large Language Models

An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation

Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Vision

Evaluating Large Language Models in Class-Level Code Generation

A Survey on Evaluating Large Language Models in Code Generation Tasks

A System for Automated Unit Test Generation Using Large Language Models and Assessment of Generated Test Suites

ComplexCodeEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Code Models on More Complex Code

BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions

VerilogEval: Evaluating Large Language Models for Verilog Code Generation

Benchmarks and Metrics for Evaluations of Code Generation: A Critical Review

A Software Engineering Perspective on Testing Large Language Models: Research, Practice, Tools and Benchmarks

EvoCodeBench: An Evolving Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Code Repositories

HITS: High-coverage LLM-based Unit Test Generation via Method Slicing

CodeJudge: Evaluating Code Generation with Large Language Models

CodeJudge-Eval: Can Large Language Models be Good Judges in Code Understanding?