Influencing factors in model-based testing with UML state machines: Report on an industrial cooperation

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 5795 LNCS, Issue , 2009, Pages 211-225

  Weißleder, Stephan ^a  

^a FRAUNHOFER FIRST   (Germany)

Author keywords

Coverage Criteria; Industrial Cooperation; Model Based Testing; Mutation Analysis; State Machines

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC MODELS; COVERAGE CRITERIA; INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION; INFLUENCING FACTOR; MODEL BASED TESTING; MUTATION ANALYSIS; ORIGINAL SYSTEMS; STATE MACHINE; TEST GENERATION ALGORITHM; TEST GENERATIONS; TEST MODELS; UML STATE MACHINE;

CONTOUR FOLLOWERS; EMBEDDED SYSTEMS; LINGUISTICS; MODELS; SOFTWARE TESTING;

TESTING;

EID: 77349096878     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_16     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 2.1 (2007)
2. Fraser, G., Wotawa, F.: Ordering coverage goals in model checker based testing. In: ICSTW 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE ICST Workshop, vol. 0, pp. 31-40 (2008)
3. Weißleder, S.: ParTeG (Partition Test Generator), http ://parteg.sourcesorge.net
4. Ammann, P., Offutt, J.: Introduction to Software Testing. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)
5. Binder, R. V.: Testing object-oriented systems: models, patterns, and tools. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (1999)
6. Myers, G. J.: Art of Software Testing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1979)
7. Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J. P.: Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems: Advanced Lectures. LNCS, vol. 3472. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
8. Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2006)
9. Offutt, J., Abdurazik, A.: Generating tests from UML specifications. In: France, R. B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 416-429. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
10. Sokenou, D.: Generating Test Sequences from UML Sequence Diagrams and State Diagrams. In: INFORMATIK 2006, pp. 236-240 (2006)
11. Abdurazik, A., Offutt, J.: Using UML collaboration diagrams for static checking and test generation. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 383-395. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
12. Friske, M., Schlingloff, B.H.: Improving Test Coverage for UML State Machines Using Transition Instrumentation. In: Saglietti, F., Oster, N. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4680, pp. 301-314. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
13. Weißleder, S., Schlingloff, B. H.: Deriving Input Partitions from UML Models for Automatic Test Generation. In: Giese, H. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5002, pp. 151-163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
14. Lämmel, R., Harm, J.: Test case characterisation by regular path expressions. In: Brinksma, E., Tretmans, J. (eds.) Proc. Formal Approaches to Testing of Software (FATES 2001). Notes Series NS-01-4, BRICS, pp. 109-124 (2001)
15. Briand, L. C., Labiche, Y., Lin, Q.: Improving statechart testing criteria using data flow information. In: ISSRE 2005, pp. 95-104 (2005)
16. Kosmatov, N., Legeard, B., Peureux, F., Utting, M.: Boundary Coverage Criteria for Test Generation from Formal Models. In: ISSRE 2004, pp. 139-150. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)
17. Weißleder, S., Schlingloff, B.-H.: Quality of Automatically Generated Test Cases based on OCL Expressions. In: ICST, pp. 517-520. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)
18. Chilenski, J. J., Miller, S. P.: Applicability of Modified Condition/Decision Coverage to Software Testing. Software Engineering Journal (1994)
19. Ranville, S.: MCDC Test Vectors From Matlab Models - Automatically. In: Embedded Systems Conference, San Francisco, USA (2003)
20. Rajan, A., Whalen, M. W., Heimdahl, M. P. E.: The effect of program and model structure on mc/dc test adequacy coverage. In: ICSE 2008, pp. 161-170. ACM, New York (2008)
21. Weißleder, S.: Semantic-Preserving Test Model Transformations for Interchangeable Coverage Criteria. In: MBEES 2009: Model-Based Development of Embedded Systems (April 2009)
22. Offutt, A. J., Lee, A., Rothermel, G., Untch, R. H., Zapf, C.: An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 99-118 (1996)
23. Offutt, A. J., Lee, S. D.: An empirical evaluation of weak mutation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(5), 337-344 (1994)
24. Black, P. E., Okun, V., Yesha, Y.: Mutation Operators for Specifications. In: ASE 2000: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, Washington, DC, USA, p. 81. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)
25. Andrews, J. H., Briand, L. C., Labiche, Y.: Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? In: ICSE 2005, pp. 402-411. ACM, New York (2005)
26. Andrews, J. H., Briand, L. C., Labiche, Y., Namin, A. S.: Using Mutation Analysis for Assessing and Comparing Testing Coverage Criteria. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32, 608-624 (2006)
27. Paradkar, A.: Case studies on fault detection effectiveness of model based test generation techniques. In: A-MOST 2005, pp. 1-7. ACM Press, New York (2005)
28. Chilenski, J. J.: MCDC Forms (Unique-Cause, Masking) versus Error Sensitivity, a white paper submitted to NASA Langley Research Center under contract NASl20341 (January 2001)
29. Certification Authorities Software Team: Position Paper-6: Rationale for Accepting Masking MC/DC in Certification Projects (2001)
30. Budnik, C. J., Subramanyan, R., Vieira, M.: Peer-to-peer comparison of modelbased test tools. In: GI Jahrestagung (1). LNI, vol. 133, pp. 223-226. GI (2008)