RESTCov: A Tool for Structural Coverage Analysis of REST APIs

Tolgahan Bardakci; Serge Demeyer

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.28114

RESTCov: A Tool for Structural Coverage Analysis of REST APIs

Tolgahan Bardakci·Serge Demeyer

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

REST APIs are widely used in modern software systems, but developers and testers often lack visibility into which parts of an API specification are exercised by a test suite. Traditional coverage analysis usually relies on source-code instrumentation, which is impractical for REST APIs that are distributed, externally maintained, and hence accessible only through black-box execution. This paper presents RESTCov, a lightweight tool that computes structural REST API coverage from an OpenAPI specification and observed HTTP request/response logs, reporting coverage across paths, operations, parameters, media types, status codes, and status classes. RESTCov produces both machine-readable results and a human-readable HTML report, helping users inspect coverage gaps, diagnose specification-log mismatches, and evaluate REST API test suites without requiring access to the implementation. Screencast: https://youtu.be/mNz2P43OyUc Repository: https://github.com/2tolgahan2/RESTCov

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Tolgahan Bardakci, Serge Demeyer. 2026-08-28. RESTCov: A Tool for Structural Coverage Analysis of REST APIs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28114

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Impact of GenAI on the Future of Requirements Engineering

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are transforming how we design and build systems by increasing access to domain knowledge and by providing automation support to software engineering (SE). As implementation becomes less expensive through generalist SE agents, engineering effort shifts away from writing correct code and toward expressing, curating, verifying, and evaluating requirements. In this paper, we survey the state of the art in AI for requirements engineering (RE) research leading up to the transformation, before reviewing advances in LLMs. We survey two subsequent research areas: prompt programming, which treats LLM instructions as a program in SE vernacular, and generalist SE agents, which combine multiple LLM advances to yield semi-autonomous processes that complete SE tasks. Finally, we explore the future of requirements engineering along two axes: matters changing how we interact with requirements through the SE process, and matters changing how requirements are experienced by software developers and stakeholders more broadly, including end-users. This article aims to inform how RE researchers can navigate this transformation in the selection of future research priorities.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE↗