Adoption of model-based testing and abstract interpretation by a railway signalling manufacturer

International Journal of Embedded and Real-Time Communication Systems

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 42-61

  Ferrari, Alessio ^a   Magnani, Gianluca ^b   Grasso, Daniele ^b   Fantechi, Alessandro ^a   Tempestini, Matteo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b General Electric Transportation Systems   (Italy)

Author keywords

Abstract interpretation; Code generation; Model based testing; Railway signalling; Safety critical software

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859452280     PISSN: 19473176     EISSN: 19473184     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jertcs.2011040103     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aiken, A. (1999). Introduction to set constraint-based program analysis. Science of Computer Programming, 35(2-3), 79-111. doi:10.1016/S0167-6423(99) 00007-6
2. nd International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation, Denver, CO (pp. 131-140). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
3. th International Symposium on Formal Methods, Hamilton, ON, Canada (LNCS 4085, pp. 179-189).
4. Baresel, A., Conrad, M., Sadeghipour, S., & Wegener, J. (2003). The interplay between model coverage and code coverage. In Proceedings of the 11th European International Conference on Software Testing, Analysis and Review, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
5. Barkah, D., Ermedahl, A., Gustafsson, J., Lisper, B., & Sandberg, C. (2008). Evaluation of automatic flow analysis for WCET calculation on industrial real-time system code. In Proceedings of the 20th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 331-340). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
6. Blanchet, B., Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, R., Mauborgne, R., Miné, A., et al. (2003). A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, San Diego, CA (pp. 196-207). New York, NY: ACM Press.
7. Bozga, M., Fernandez, J. C., Ghirvu, L., Jard, C., Jéron, T., & Kerbrat, A. (2000). Verification and test generation for the Sscop protocol. Science of Computer Programming, 36(1), 27-52. doi:10.1016/S0167- 6423(99)00017-9
8. Brat, G., & Klemm, R. (2003). Static analysis of the mars exploration rover flight software. In Proceedings of the 1st International Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology, Pasadena, CA (pp. 321-326). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
9. Broy, M., & Jonsson, B. Katoen, Philipps, J., Leucker, M., & Pretschner, A. (eds.). (2005). Model-based testing of reactive systems (LNCS 3472, pp. 281-291). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
10. Comité Européen de Normalisation en Électronique et en Électrotechnique. (1999). EN 50126: Railway applications - the specification and demonstration of dependability, reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS) (Tech. Rep. No. TX9X). Brussels, Belgium: CENELEC.
11. Comité Européen de Normalisation en Électronique et en Électrotechnique. (2001). EN 50128: Railway applications - communications, signalling and processing systems - software for railway control and protection systems. Brussels, Belgium: CENELEC.
12. Conrad, M. (2009). Testing-based translation validation of generated code in the context of IEC 61508. Formal Methods in System Design, 35(3), 389-401. doi:10.1007/s10703-009-0082-0
13. th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Los Angeles, CA (pp.238-353). New York, NY: ACM Press.
14. th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Antonio, TX (pp. 269-282). New York, NY: ACM Press.
15. Cousot, P., & Cousot, R. (1992). Abstract interpretation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(4), 511-547. doi:10.1093/logcom/2.4.511
16. st International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, CA (pp. 285-294). New York, NY: ACM Press.
17. th International Static Analysis Symposium, Lyngby, Denmark (LNCS 4634, pp. 437-451).
18. Deutsch, A. (2004). Static verification of dynamic properties. Retrieved from http://www.sigada.org/conf/sigada2003/SIGAda2003-CDROM
19. El-Far, I. K., & Whittaker, J. A. (2002). Model-based software testing. In Marciniak, J. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of software engineering (Vol. 1, pp. 825-837). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
20. rd European Symposium on Verification and Validation of Software Systems, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (pp. 153-163).
21. Ferrari, A., Fantechi, A., Tempestini, M., & Zingoni, N. (2009). Modeling guidelines for code generation in the railway signaling context. In Proceedings of the 1st NASA Formal Methods Symposium, Moffet Field, CA (pp. 166-170).
22. Ferrari, A., Grasso, D., Magnani, G., Fantechi, A., & Tempestini, M. (2010, September). The Metrô Rio ATP case study. In S. Kowalewski & M. Roveri (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, Antwerp, Belgium (LNCS 6371, pp. 1-16).
23. Fosdick, L. D., & Osterweil, L. J. (1976). Data flow analysis in software reliability. ACM Computing Surveys, 8(3), 305-330. doi:10.1145/356674. 356676
24. Grasso, D., Fantechi, A., Ferrari, A., Becheri, C., & Bacherini, S. (2010). Model based testing and abstract interpretation in the railway signaling context. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, Paris, France (pp. 103-106). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
25. Gulavani, B. S., & Rajamani, S. K. (2006). Counterexample driven refinement for abstract interpretation. In H. Hermanns & J. Palsberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Wien, Austria (LNCS 3920, pp. 474-488).
26. Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamad, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., et al. (1988). Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering, Raffles City, Singapore (pp. 396-496). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
27. Hessel, A., & Pettersson, P. (2006). Model-based testing of a WAP gateway: An industrial study. In L. Brim & M. Leucker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, Bonn, Germany (LNCS 4346, pp. 116-131).
28. Hierons, R. M., Bogdanov, K., Bowen, J. P., Cleaveland, R., Derrick, J., & Dick, J. (2009). Using formal specifications to support testing. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(2), 1-9. doi:10.1145/1459352.1459354
29. Hierons, R. M., Bowen, J. P., & Harman, M. (Eds.). (2008). Formal methods and testing (LNCS 4949, pp. 1-38). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
30. Howden, W. E. (1975). Methodology for the generation of program test data. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 24(5), 554-560. doi:10.1109/T-C.1975. 224259
31. th International Static Analysis Symposium, London, UK (LNCS 3672, pp. 203-217).
32. Kim, Y., Lee, J., Han, H., & Choea, K. M. (2010). Filtering false alarms of buffer overflow analysis using SMT solvers. Information and Software Technology, 52(2), 210-219. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.10.004
33. th International Static Analysis Symposium, San Diego, CA (LNCS 2694, pp. 295-315).
34. th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, Jersey City, NJ (pp. 299-306). New York, NY: ACM Press.
35. Matlab Automotive Advisory Board. (2007). Control algorithm modeling guidelines using Matlab, Simulink and Stateflow, version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.mathworks.com/automotive/standards/maab.html
36. Miller, S. P., Whalen, M. W., & Cofer, D. D. (2010). Software model checking takes off. Communications of the ACM, 53(2), 58-64. doi:10.1145/1646353.1646372
37. Mohagheghi, P., & Dehlen, V. (2010). Where is the proof? A review of experiences from applying MDE in industry. In I. Schieferdecker & A. Hartman (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Based Testing of Reactive Systems (LNCS 5095, pp. 432-443).
38. Object Management Group. (2010a). OMG systems modeling language (OMG SysML™), Version 1.2. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.2
39. Object Management Group. (2010b). OMG unified modeling language™(OMG UML), Infrastructure, Version 2.3. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/Infrastructure
40. Object Management Group. (2010c). OMG unified modeling language™(OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.3. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/Superstructure
41. rd IEEE International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology, Pasadena, CA (pp. 83-90). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
42. rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, L'Aquila, Italy (pp. 188-197). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
43. Prenninger, W., El-Ramly, M., & Horstmann, M. (2005). Case studies. In M. Broy, B. Jonsson, J. P. Katoen, M. Leucker, & A. Pretschner (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Based Testing of Reactive Systems (LNCS 3472, pp. 439-461).
44. Pretschner, A., & Phillips, J. (2005). Methodological issues in model-based testing. In M. Broy, B. Jonsson, J. P. Katoen, M. Leucker, & A. Pretschner (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Based Testing of Reactive Systems (LNCS 3472, pp. 281-291).
45. th International Conference on Software Engineering, St. Louis, MO (pp. 392-401). New York, NY: ACM Press.
46. Pretschner, A., Slotosch, O., Aiglstorfer, A., & Kriebel, S. (2004). Model-based testing for real. Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 5(2-3), 140-157. doi:10.1007/s10009-003-0128-3
47. Regehr, J., Reid, A., & Webb, K. (2005). Eliminating stack overflow by abstract interpretation. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, 4(4), 751-778. doi:10.1145/1113830.1113833
48. th International Static Analysis Symposium, London, UK (LNCS 3672, pp. 303-319).
49. st Workshop on Model-based Testing in Practice, Berlin, Germany (pp. 83-89).
50. Thesing, S., Souyris, J., Heckmann, R., Randimbivololona, F., Langenbach, M., Wilhelm, R., et al. (2003). An abstract interpretation-based timing validation of hard real-time avionics software systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, San Francisco, CA (pp. 625-632).Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
51. Utting, M., & Legeard, B. (2007). Practical model-based testing: A tools approach. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
52. Venet, A., & Brat, G. (2004). Precise and efficient static array bound checking for large embedded C programs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Washington, DC (pp. 231-242). New York, NY: ACM Press.
53. Vouk, M. A. (1990). Back-to-back testing. Information and Software Technology, 32(1), 34-45. doi:10.1016/0950-5849(90)90044-R
54. th International Conference on Software Engineering, San Diego, CA (pp. 439-449). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.