A methodology for evaluating test coverage criteria of high levelPetri nets

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 51, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1520-1533

  Ding, Junhua ^a   Clarke, Peter J ^b   Argote Garcia, Gonzalo ^b   He, Xudong ^b  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Model checker SPIN; Predicate transition nets; Software testing; Test adequacy criteria

Indexed keywords

CONCURRENT SYSTEMS; COVERAGE CRITERIA; EXPRESSIVE POWER; FORMAL ANALYSIS; HIGH-LEVEL PETRI NETS; MODEL CHECKER; MODEL CHECKER SPIN; NET MODEL; PREDICATE/TRANSITION NETS; TEST ADEQUACY CRITERIA; TEST COVERAGE CRITERIA; TEST CRITERIA;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; GRAPH THEORY; PETRI NETS; SOFTWARE TESTING; SPIN DYNAMICS; TESTING;

MODEL CHECKING;

EID: 69549135128     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.06.014     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. P. Ammann, P.E. Black, W. Ding, Model Checkers in Software Testing, Tech. Rep. NIST-IR 6777, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002.
2. Beizer B. Software Testing Techniques (1990), Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY
3. P.E. Black, V. Okun, Y. Yesha, Mutation operators for specifications, in: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE2000), 2000.
4. L.C. Briand, Y. Labiche, Y. Wang, Using simulation to empirically investigate test coverage criteria based on statechart, in: ICSE'04: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
5. DeMartini C., Iosif R., and Sisto R. A deadlock detection tool for concurrent java programs. Software Pract. Exp. 29 7 (1999) 577-603
6. J. Ding, A Methodology for Formally Modeling and Analyzing Software Architecture of Mobile Agent Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Florida International University, 2004.
7. Dwyer M.B., Clarke L.A., Cobleigh J.M., and Naumovich G. Flow analysis for verifying properties of concurrent software systems. ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol. 13 4 (2004) 359-430
8. P.G. Frankl, S.N. Weiss, An experimental comparison of the effectiveness of the all-uses and all-edges adequacy criteria, in: TAV4: Proceedings of the Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification, 1991.
9. Frankl P.G., and Weiss S.N. An experimental comparison of the effectiveness of branch testing and data flow testing. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 19 (1993) 774-787
10. Gannod G.C., and Gupta S. An automated tool for analyzing petri nets using spin. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'01) (2001), IEEE
11. Gargantini A., and Heitmeyer C. Using model checking to generate tests from requirements specifications. Proceedings of the 7th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with the 7th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (1999), ACM
12. B. Grahlmann, C. Pohl, Profiting from spin in PEP, in: Proceedings of the 4th International SPIN Workshop (SPIN'98), 1998.
13. X. He, A formal definition of hierarchical predicate transition nets, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, 1996.
14. X. He, T. Murata, in: Wai-Kai Chen (Ed.), High-Level Petri Nets - Extensions, Analysis, and Applications, Electrical Engineering Handbook, Elsevier Academic Press, 2005.
15. He X., Yu H., Shi T., Ding J., and Deng Y. Formally analyzing software architectural specifications using sam. J. Syst. Software 71 1-2 (2004) 11-29
16. Hierons R.M. Comparing test sets and criteria in the presence of test hypotheses and fault domains. ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol. 11 4 (2002) 427-448
17. Holzmann G.J. The Spin Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual (2003), Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA
18. Inverardi P., and Wolf A.L. Formal specification and analysis of software architectures using the chemical abstract machine model. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 21 4 (1995) 373-386
19. Koppol P.V., Carver R.H., and Tai K.C. Incremental integration testing of concurrent programs. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28 6 (2002) 607-623
20. McDowell C.E., and Helmbold D.P. Debugging concurrent programs. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 21 4 (1989) 593-622
21. Rayadurgam S., and Heimdahl M.P. Coverage based test-case generation using model checkers. Proceedings of the 8th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS 2001) (2001), IEEE Computer Society
22. Richardson D., O'Malley O., and Tittle C. Approaches to specification-based testing. SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes 14 8 (1989) 86-96
23. D.J. Richardson, A.L. Wolf, Software testing at the architectural level, in: Joint Proceedings of the Second International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW-2) and International Workshop on Multiple Perspectives in Software Development (Viewpoints 96) on SIGSOFT 96 Workshops, 1996.
24. Rutherford M.J., Carzaniga A., and Wolf A.L. Evaluating test suites and adequacy criteria using simulation-based models of distributed systems. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 34 4 (2008) 452-470
25. Spin, On-The-Fly, LTL Model Checking with SPIN, August 2008. .
26. Taylor R., Levine D., and Kelly C. Structural testing of concurrent programs. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 18 3 (1992) 206-215
27. K. Varpaaniemi, J. Halme, K. Hiekkanen, T. Pyssysalo, Prod Reference Manual, Tech. Rep., Helsinki University of Technology, Dept. of Computer Science and Eng., Digital Systems Lab., 1995.
28. Zhu H., Hall P.A.V., and May J.H.R. Software unit testing coverage and adequacy. ACM Comput. Surv. 29 4 (1997) 366-427
29. Zhu H., and He X. A methodology of testing high-level petri nets. Inform. Software Technol. 44 (2002) 473-489
30. Zurawski R., and Zhou M. Petri nets and industrial applications: a tutorial. IEEE Trans. Indust. Electron. 41 6 (1994) 567-583