Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise in automating unit test generation, significantly reducing the manual effort required by developers. To effectively evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in this domain, it is crucial to have a well-designed benchmark that accurately reflects real-world scenarios and mitigates common pitfalls. Existing LLM test generation benchmarks are limited by two critical drawbacks: data contamination and structurally simple function code. As a result, we often cannot rely on the validity of scientific conclusions drawn from empirical studies using these limited benchmarks. The empirical evidence presented may be biased due to contamination and may fail to generalize beyond toy programs due to structural simplicity. To address these problems, we introduce ULT (UnLeakedTestbench), a new benchmark specifically designed for function-level unit test generation from real-world Python functions. ULT is constructed through a multi-stage curation process that ensures high cyclomatic complexity and mitigates test case contamination. With 3,909 carefully selected function-level tasks, ULT provides a more realistic and challenging evaluation of LLMs' test generation capabilities. We also provide PLT (PreLeakedTestbench), a pair benchmark of ULT with leaked tests designed to enable a controlled analysis of memorization versus reasoning in test generation. Our evaluation results demonstrate that ULT is significantly more challenging. For example, test cases generated by LLMs only achieve 41.32\%, 45.10\%, 30.22\%, and 40.21\% for accuracy, statement coverage, branch coverage, and mutation score on average for all LLMs, respectively. These results are substantially lower than the corresponding metrics on TestEval (91.79\%, 92.18\%, 82.04\%, and 49.69\%) and PLT (47.07\%, 55.13\%, 40.07\%, and 50.80\%).

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to assist test generation with the source code under test provided as the context. This paper aims to answer the question: If the source code under test is incorrect, will LLMs be misguided when generating tests? The effectiveness of test cases is measured by their accuracy, coverage, and bug detection effectiveness. Our evaluation results with five open- and six closed-source LLMs on four datasets demonstrate that incorrect code can significantly mislead LLMs in generating correct, high-coverage, and bug-revealing tests. For instance, in the HumanEval dataset, LLMs achieve 80.45% test accuracy when provided with task descriptions and correct code, but only 57.12% when given task descriptions and incorrect code. For the APPS dataset, prompts with correct code yield tests that detect 39.85% of the bugs, while prompts with incorrect code detect only 19.61%. These findings have important implications for the deployment of LLM-based testing: using it on mature code may help protect against future regression, but on early-stage immature code, it may simply bake in errors. Our findings also underscore the need for further research to improve LLMs resilience against incorrect code in generating reliable and bug-revealing tests.