A formal analysis of MCDC and RCDC test criteria

Software Testing Verification and Reliability

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 21-40

  Kapoor, Kalpesh ^a,b   Bowen, Jonathan P ^a  

^a LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b DHIRUBHAI AMBANI INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

Boolean specifications; Control flow test criteria; Formal analysis; MCDC; RCDC; Structural coverage analysis

Indexed keywords

AVIONICS; BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY; SPECIFICATIONS; TESTING;

BOOLEAN SPECIFICATIONS; CONTROL-FLOW TEST CRITERIA; FORMAL ANALYSIS; MODIFIED CONDITION DECISION COVERAGE; REINFORCED CONDITION DECISION COVERAGE; STRUCTURAL COVERAGE ANALYSIS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 15344341219     PISSN: 09600833     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/stvr.306     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Standard RTCA/DO-178B. Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Washington, DC, 1992.
2. Zhu H, Hall P, May HR. Software unit test coverage and adequacy. ACM Computing Surveys 1997; 29(4):336-427.
3. Roper M. Software Testing. McGraw-Hill: New York. 1994.
4. Myers G. The Art of Software Testing. Wiley: New York, 1979.
5. Hayhurst KJ, Veerhusen DS, A practical approach to modified condition/ decision covemge. Proceedings of 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), vol. 1, October 2001. IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, 2001: 1B2/1-1B2/10.
6. Dupuy A, Leveson N. An empirical evaluation of the MC/DC coverage criterion on the HETE-2 satellite software. Proceedings of DASC: Digital Aviation Systems Conference, Philadelphia, PA. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, October 2000: 1B6/1-1B6/7.
7. DeWalt M. MCDC: A blistering love/hate relationship. Proceedings of the FAA National Software Conference, April 1999. Long Beach, CA. U.S.A.
8. Vilkomir SA, Bowen JP. Reinforced condition/decision coverage (RC/DC): A new criterion for software testing. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, Formal Specification and Development in Z and B (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2272), Bert D, Bowen JP, Henson M. Robinson K (eds). Springer: Berlin, 2002: 295-313.
9. Brown FM. Boolean Reasoning: The Logic of Boolean Equations. Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, 1990.
10. Chen TY, Lau MF. Test case selection strategies based on Boolean specifications. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 2001; 11(3):165-180.
11. Richardson DJ, Thompson MC. An analysis of test data selection criteria using the RELAY model of fault detection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1993; 19(6):533-553.
12. DeMillo RA, Lipton RJ, Sayward FG. Hints on test data selection: Help for the practicing programmer. IEEE Computer 1978; 11 4):34-41.
13. Hierons RM. Comparing test sets and criteria in the presence of test hypotheses and fault domains. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2002; 11(4):427-448.
14. Voas JM. PIE: A dynamic failure-based technique. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1992; 18(2):717-727.
15. Offutt AJ, Pan J. Automatically detecting equivalent mutants and infeasible paths. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 1997; 7(3):165-192.
16. Beizer B. Software Testing Techniques (2nd edn), ch. 10. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, 1990; 320-362.
17. Burton S. Towards automated unit testing of statechart implementations. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of York, U.K., 1999.
18. Offutt J. Generating test data from requirements/specifications: Phase III final report. Technical Report ISE-TR-00-02, Department of Information and Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, May 2000.
19. Heimdahl M, Rayadurgam S, Visser W, Devaraj G, Gao J. Auto-generating test sequences using model checkers: A case study. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Testing of Software (FATES) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2931). Springer: Berlin, 2003; 42-59.
20. Offutt J, Abdurazik A. Generating tests from UML specifications. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1723). Springer: Berlin, 1999; 416-429.
21. Mucke T, Huhn M. Generation of optimized testsuites for UML statecharts with time. Proceedings of Testing of Communicating Systems (TESTCOM) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2978). Springer: Berlin, 2004; 128-143.
22. Offutt AJ, Xiong Y, Liu S. Criteria for generating specification-based tests. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 1999; 119-129.
23. Chilenski J, Miller S. Applicability of modified condition/decision coverage to software testing. Software Engineering Journal 1994; 9(5):193-200.
24. Chilenski JJ. An investigation of three forms of the modified condition decision coverage (MCDC) criterion. Technical Report DOT/FAA/AR-01 /18 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, April 2001.
25. Jasper R, Brennan M, Williamson K, Currier B, Zimmerman D. Test data generation and feasible path analysis. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA). ACM Press: New York, 1994; 95-107.
26. Jones JA, Harrold MJ. Test-suite reduction and prioritization for modified condition/decision coverage. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 2001; 92-101.
27. Li YY. Structural test cases analysis and implementation. Proceedings of the 42nd Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol. 2. IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, 1999; 882-885.
28. White A. Comments on modified condition/decision coverage for software testing. Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MN, vol. 6. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 2001; 2821-2828.
29. Paradkar A, Tai KC, Vouk MA. Automatic test-generation for predicates. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 1996; 45(4):515-530.
30. Vouk MA, Tai KC, Paradkar A. Empirical studies of predicate-based software testing. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 1994; 55-64.
31. Tai K-C. Theory of fault-based predicate testing for computer programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1996; 22 8):552-562.
32. Weyuker E, Goradia T, Singh A. Automatically generating test data from a Boolean specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1994; 20(5):353-363.
33. Rayadurgam S, Heimdahl MPE. Coverage based test-case generation using model checkers. Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-based Systems (ECBS). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 2001; 83-91.
34. Morell LJ. A Theory of fault-based testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1990; 16(8):844-857.
35. Kahn J, Kalai G, Linial N. The Influence of variables on Boolean functions. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 1998; 68-80.
36. Bernasconi A. On the complexity of balanced Boolean functions. Information Processing Letters 1999; 70:157-163.
37. Offutt AJ. Investigations of the software testing coupling effect. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1992; 1 1):5-20.
38. Kuhn DR. Fault classes and error detection capability of specification-based testing. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1999; 8(4):411-424.
39. Tsuchiya T, Kikuno T. On fault classes and error detection capability of specification-based testing. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2002; 11(1):58-62.
40. Okun V, Black PE, Yesha Y. Comparison of fault classes in specification-based testing. Information and Software Technology 2004; 46(8):525-533.
41. Kapoor K. Stability of test criteria and fault hierarchies in software testing. PhD Thesis, London South Bank University, August 2004.