Semantic-preserving test model transformations for interchangeable coverage criteria

Tagungsband - Dagstuhl-Workshop MBEES: Modellbasierte Entwicklung eingebetteter Systeme V, MBEES 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 26-35

  Weißleder, Stephan ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COVERAGE CRITERIA; INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION; MODEL BASED TESTING; MODEL TRANSFORMATION; MODEL-BASED TEST; TEST GENERATIONS; TEST MODELS; TEST QUALITY;

EMBEDDED SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SEMANTICS;

TESTING;

EID: 84873284924     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. J. H. Andrews, L. C. Briand, and Y. Labiche. Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? In ICSE '05, pages 402-411, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
2. J. H. Andrews, L. C. Briand, Y. Labiche, and A. S. Namin. Using Mutation Analysis for Assessing and Comparing Testing Coverage Criteria. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 32:608-624, 2006.
3. P. Ammann and J. Offutt. Introduction to Software Testing. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
4. R. V. Binder. Testing object-oriented systems: models, patterns, and tools. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1999.
5. L. C. Briand, Y. Labiche, and J. Cui. Automated support for deriving test requirements from UML statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling, V4(4):399-423, November 2005.
6. P. E. Black, V. Okun, and Y. Yesha. Mutation Operators for Specifications. In ASE '00: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, page 81, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. IEEE Computer Society.
7. C. J. Budnik, R. Subramanyan, and M. Vieira. Peer-to-Peer Comparison of Model-Based Test Tools. In GI Jahrestagung (1), volume 133 of LNI, pages 223-226. GI, 2008.
8. J. J. Chilenski and S. P. Miller. Applicability of Modified Condition/Decision Coverage to Software Testing. In Software Engineering Journal, 1994.
9. M. Friske and B.-H. Schlingloff. Improving Test Coverage for UML State Machines Using Transition Instrumentation. In Francesca Saglietti and Norbert Oster, editors, SAFECOMP, volume 4680 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 301-314. Springer, 2007.
10. M. Friske, B.-H. Schlingloff, and S. Weißleder. Composition of Model-based Test Coverage Criteria. In MBEES'08: Model-Based Development of Embedded Systems, 2008.
11. N. Kosmatov, B. Legeard, F. Peureux, and M. Utting. Boundary Coverage Criteria for Test Generation from Formal Models. In ISSRE '04, pages 139-150. IEEE, 2004.
12. Leirios. LTD/UML. http://www.leirios.com.
13. G. J. Myers. Art of Software Testing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 1979.
14. A. S. Namin, J. H. Andrews, and D. J. Murdoch. Sufficient mutation operators for measuring test effectiveness. In ICSE '08, pages 351-360, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
15. J. Offutt and A. Abdurazik. Generating Tests from UML Specifications. In UML'99, pages 416-429, 1999.
16. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 2.1, 2007.
17. A. Jefferson Offutt and Stephen D. Lee. An Empirical Evaluation of Weak Mutation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(5):337-344, 1994.
18. A. J. Offutt, A. Lee, G. Rothermel, R. H. Untch, and C. Zapf. An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, pages 99-118, 1996.
19. A. Paradkar. Case studies on fault detection effectiveness of model based test generation techniques. In A-MOST '05, pages 1-7, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
20. A. Pretschner, W. Prenninger, S. Wagner, C. Kuhnel, M. Baumgartner, B. Sostawa, R. Zolch, and T. Stauner. One evaluation of model-based testing and its automation. In ICSE '05: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, pages 392-401.
21. S. Ranville. MCDC Test Vectors From Matlab Models-Automatically. In Embedded Systems Conference, San Francisco, USA, 2003.
22. A. Rajan, M. W. Whalen, and M. P. E. Heimdahl. The effect of program and model structure on mc/dc test adequacy coverage. In ICSE '08, pages 161-170, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
23. D. Seifert, S. Helke, and T. Santen. Test Case Generation for UML Statecharts. In PSI03. Springer-Verlag, 2003.
24. Telelogic. Rhapsody Automated Test Generation. http://www.telelogic.com.
25. M. Utting and B. Legeard. Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 2006.
26. S. Weißleder. ParTeG (Partition Test Generator). http://parteg.sourceforge.net.
27. E. J. Weyuker. More Experience with Data Flow Testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 19(9):912-919, 1993.
28. S. Weißleder and B.-H. Schlingloff. Deriving Input Partitions from UML Models for Automatic Test Generation. In MoDELS Workshops, volume 5002 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 151-163. Springer, 2007.
29. S. Weißleder and B.-H. Schlingloff. Quality of Automatically Generated Test Cases based on OCL Expressions. In ICST, pages 517-520. IEEE Computer Society, 2008.