Testing software modelling tools using data mutation

Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 43-49

  Shan, Lijun ^a   Zhu, Hong ^b  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA MUTATION; DETECTING ABILITY; EXPERIMENT DATA; INPUT DATAS; MODEL-DRIVEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; MODELLING TOOLS; MUTATION OPERATORS; MUTATION TESTING; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; TEST CASE; TEST DATA; TESTING SOFTWARE;

METADATA; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SOFTWARE TESTING; TEST FACILITIES; WAVELET TRANSFORMS;

TESTING;

EID: 68049104440     PISSN: 02705257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1138929.1138938     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (56)

1. Howden, W. E., Methodology for the generation of program test data, IEEE Trans. on Computers, 24(5), 1975, 554-560.
2. Clarke, L., A system to generate test data and symbolically execute programs, IEEE TSE, 2(3), 1976, 215-222.
3. Korel, B., Automated software test data generation, IEEE TSE, 16(8), 1990, 870-879. (Pubitemid 20738724)
4. Beydeda, S. & Gruhn, V., BINTEST - Binary Search-based Test Case Generation, COMPSAC'03, 28-33.
5. Gupta, N., Mathur, A.P. & Soffa, M.L., Generating Test Data for Branch Coverage, ASE'00, 219-227.
6. Pargas, R.P., Harrold, M.J. & Peck, R. R., Test data generation using genetic algorithms, STVR 9(4), 1999, 263-282. (Pubitemid 30546633)
7. DeMillo, R. A. & Offutt, A. J., Constraint-based automatic test data generation, IEEE TSE, 17(9), 1991, 900-909.
8. DeMillo,R.&Offutt, J., Experimental results from an automatic test case generator, ACM TOSEM, 2(2), 1993, 109-127.
9. Tai, K-C., Predicate-based test generation for computer programs, ICSE'93, 267-276.
10. Denney, R., Test-case generation from Prolog-based specifications, IEEE Software, March 1991, 49-57.
11. Bouge, L., Choquet, N., Fribourg, L. & Gaudel, M.-C., Test set generation from algebraic specifications using logic programming. JSS, 6, 1986, 343-360,
12. Doong R.K.&Frankl, P.G., The ASTOOT approach to testing object-oriented programs, ACM TOSEM, 3(2), 1994, 101-130.
13. Chen, H. Y. Tse, T. H. & Chen, T. Y., TACCLE: a methodology for object-oriented software testing at the class and cluster levels, ACM TOSEM, 10(1), 2001.
14. Fujiwara, S., Bochmann, G., Khendek, F., Amalou, M. & Ghedamsi, A., Test selection based on finite state models, IEEE TSE, 17(6), 1991, 591-603. (Pubitemid 21675162)
15. Lee, D. & Yannakakis, M., Principles and methods of testing finite state machines - a survey, Proc. of the IEEE, 84, Aug 1996, 1090-1123. (Pubitemid 126752579)
16. Hierons, R. M., Checking states and transitions of a set of communicating finite state machines, Microprocessors and Microsystems, 24(9), 2001, 443-452. (Pubitemid 32196236)
17. Morasca, S. & Pezze, M., Using high-level Petri nets for testing concurrent and real-time systems, Real-Time Systems, Theory and Applications, H. Zedan ed., North Holland, 1990.
18. Zhu, H. & He, X., A methodology of testing high-level Petri nets, IST, 44(8), 2002, 473-489. (Pubitemid 34704252)
19. Zhu, H., Jin, L., Diaper, D., Software requirements validation via task analysis, JSS, 61(2), 2002, 145-169. (Pubitemid 34223174)
20. Hartman, A. & Nagin, K., The AGEDIS tools for model based testing, ISSTA '04, 129-132.
21. Offutt, J.& Abdurazik,A., Using UML collaboration diagrams for static checking and test generation., UML'00, 383-395.
22. Tahat, L. H., Bader, A. J., Vaysburg, B., Korel, B., Requirement-Based Automated Black-Box Test Generation, COMPSAC'01, 489-495.
23. Vaysburg, B., Tahat, L., Korel, B., Dependence analysis in reduction of requirement based test suites, ISSTA'02, 107-111.
24. Li, S., Wang, J., Qi, Z-C., Property-oriented test generation from UML statecharts, ASE'04, 122-131.
25. Pretschner, A., Prenninger, W., Wagner, S., Kühnel, C., Baumgartner, M., Sostawa, B., Zölch, R. & Stauner, T., One evaluation of model-based testing and its automation, ICSE'05, 392-401.
26. McMinn, P., Search-based Software Test Data Generation: A Survey, STVR, 14(2), 2004, 105-156.
27. McMinn, P. & Holcombe, M., The state problem for evolutionary testing, GECCO'03, Springer-Verlag, 2488-2497.
28. Whittaker, J. A. & Poore, J. H., Markov analysis of software specifications, ACM TOSEM, 2(1), 1993, 93-106.
29. Prowell, S. J., Using Markov Chain Usage Models to Test Complex Systems, HICSS'05, p318.
30. Bertolini, C., Farina, A. G.., Fernandes, P. & Oliveira F. M., Test Case Generation Using Stochastic Automata Networks: Quantitative Analysis, SEFM'04, 251-260.
31. Farina,A.G., Fernandes, P.&Oliveira,F.M., Measurement and empirical software engineering: Representing software usage models with stochastic automata networks, SEKE'02,401-406.
32. Shai Fine, S. & Ziv, A., Coverage directed test generation for functional verification using Bayesian networks, DA'03, 286-291.
33. Zhang, J., Xu, C., & Cheung, S.C., Automatic Generation of Database Instances for White-box Testing, COMPSAC'01, 161-165.
34. Fisher, M., Cao, M., Rothermel, G., Cook, C., & Burnett, M., Automated test case generation for spreadsheets, ICSE'02, 141-151.
35. Li, J. B., & Miller, J., Testing the Semantics of W3C XML Schema, COMPSAC'05, 443-448
36. Lee, S.C. & Offutt, J., Generating Test Cases for XML-Based Web Component Interactions Using Mutation Analysis, ISSRE'01, 200-209.
37. DeMillo, R.A., Lipton, R.J. & Sayward, F.G., Hints on test data selection: Help for the practising programmer, Computer, 11, April 1978, 34-41.
38. King, K.N. & Offutt, A.J., A FORTRAN language system for mutation-based software testing, SPE, 21(7), 1991, 685-718.
39. Budd, T. A., Mutation analysis: Ideas, examples, problems and prospects, Computer Program Testing, Chandrasekaran, B., & Radicchi, S., (eds), North- Holland, 1981, 129-148.
40. Howden, W.E., Weak mutation testing and completeness of test sets, IEEE TSE, 8(4), 1982, 371-379.
41. Woodward, M. R. & Halewood, K., From weak to strong - Dead or alive? An analysis of some mutation testing issues, TAV-2, July 1988, 152-158.
42. Gopal, A. & Budd, T., Program testing by specification mutation, Technical report TR 83-17, University of Arizona, November 1983.
43. Woodward, M.R., Errors in algebraic specifications and an experimental mutation testing tool, SEJ, July 1993, 211-224.
44. Meek B., & Siu, K.K., The effective of error seeding. SIGPLAN Notices, 24(6), 1989, 81-89.
45. Zhu, H. & Shan, L., Caste-Centric Modelling of Multi-Agent Systems: The CAMLE Modelling Language and Automated Tools, Model-driven Software Development, Beydeda, S. & Gruhn, V. (eds.), Springer, 2005, 57-89.
46. Fowler, M., UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 3rd Edt., Addison Wesley, 2004.
47. Yourdon E., Modern structured analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989
48. Zhu, H. & Shan, L., Well-formedness, Consistency and Completeness of Graphic Models. UKSIM'06, in press.
49. Zhu, H., Hall, P. & May, J., Software unit test coverage and adequacy, ACM Computing Survey, 29(4), 1997, 366-427. (Pubitemid 127583222)
50. Shan, L. & Zhu, H., Consistency Check in Modeling Multi-Agent Systems, COMPSAC'04, 114-121.
51. Moukas, A., Amalthaea: Information discovery and filtering using a multi-agent evolving ecosystem, J. Applied AI, 11(5), 1997, 437-457. (Pubitemid 127642301)
52. Zhu, H., Formal Specification of Evolutionary Software Agents, ICFEM'02, Springer LNCS 2495, 249-261.
53. Shan, L., & Zhu, H., Modelling and specification of scenarios and agent behaviour, IAT'03, 32-38.
54. Zhu, H. & Shan, L., Agent-Oriented Modelling and Specification of Web Services, WORDS'05, 152-159.
55. Zhu, H. & Wang, F., Formal Analysis of Emergent Behaviours of Autonomous Agent Communities in Scenario Calculus, Sept. 2005. (Submitted to the Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems)
56. Harrold, M. J, Offutt, J, A. & Tewary, K., An approach to fault modeling and fault seeding using the program dependence graph, JSS, 1997(3), 273-296 (Pubitemid 127371548)