A survey on formal active and passive testing with applications to the cloud

Cavalli, Ana; Higashino, Teruo; Núñez, Manuel

doi:10.1007/s12243-015-0457-8

Cited by 36 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surveys relevant to model‐based testing in the cloud include . While some are more general reviews of state‐based or model‐based testing tools, contrasting their approaches to specification, test generation and overall support , others consider service‐oriented architectures explicitly looking at the adequacy of web‐specifications for testing, or the merits of active testing (with explicit test suites) versus passive testing (non‐interventionist observation of traces) .…”

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A verified and optimized Stream X‐Machine testing method, with application to cloud service certification

Simons

Lefticaru

2020

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The Stream X‐Machine (SXM) testing method provides strong and repeatable guarantees of functional correctness, up to a specification. These qualities make the method attractive for software certification, especially in the domain of brokered cloud services, where arbitrage seeks to substitute functionally equivalent services from alternative providers. However, practical obstacles include the difficulty in providing a correct specification, the translation of abstract paths into feasible concrete tests and the large size of generated test suites. We describe a novel SXM verification and testing method, which automatically checks specifications for completeness and determinism, prior to generating complete test suites with full grounding information. Three optimization steps achieve up to a 10‐fold reduction in the size of the test suite, removing infeasible and redundant tests. The method is backed by a set of tools to validate and verify the SXM specification, generate technology‐agnostic test suites and ground these in SOAP, REST or rich‐client service implementations. The method was initially validated using seven specifications, three cloud platforms and five grounding strategies.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey by Cavalli et al. acknowledges FSM‐based testing as a sound basis for conformance testing in the cloud. The authors review the many variations of Chow's W‐method that infer system states from distinguishable input/output sequences but note that unique input/output sequences may not always exist.…”

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A verified and optimized Stream X‐Machine testing method, with application to cloud service certification

Simons

Lefticaru

2020

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The source code is available at. 9 XIFI establishes a pan-European, open federation comprised of 17 data-center nodes to cope with large trial deployments and can serve the various needs of a broad set of FI users and experimenters. The interoperability framework is one of a number of tools to support the development of software using the FIWARE collection of open, restful services.…”

Section: Interoperability Modeling and Testing Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…services and interface dependencies) and behaviour specification (using state machines and rule-based transitions to evaluate protocol events). These models are based upon Finite State Machines (FSM); there are a number of active testing solutions based upon FSM [9]. Importantly, our models focus only on what is required to interoperate, simplifying the complexity of the model in comparison to approaches that fully model a system's behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-driven interoperability: engineering heterogeneous IoT systems

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interoperability remains a significant burden to the developers of Internet of Things systems. This is because resources and APIs are dynamically composed; they are highly heterogeneous in terms of their underlying communication technologies, protocols and data formats, and interoperability tools remain limited to enforcing standardsbased approaches. In this paper, we propose model-based engineering methods to reduce the development effort towards ensuring that complex software systems interoperate with one another. Lightweight interoperability models can be specified in order to monitor and test the execution of running software so that interoperability problems can be quickly identified, and solutions put in place. A graphical model editor and testing tool are also presented to highlight how a visual model improves upon textual specifications. We show using case-studies from the FIWARE Future Internet Service domain that the software framework can support non-expert developers to address interoperability challenges.

show abstract

“…Only relatively recently, has it been recognised that formalising the different aspects of testing software is very beneficial [12]. Currently, a formal discipline of software testing, combining formal methods and testing, is well understood, tools to automate testing activities are widely available [37], and there are several surveys of the field [20,19,8]. In addition, industry is becoming aware of the importance of using formal approaches to testing in different application areas [31,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive testing with asynchronous communications and timestamps

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a formal passive testing framework for software systems where parties communicate asynchronously. Monitors, placed in between the entities, check that a certain property holds over the observations of the interaction between users and the System Under Test (SUT). Due to the asynchronous nature of communications, the trace observed by the monitor might differ from the one produced by the SUT: the monitor observes inputs before they are received by the SUT and outputs are observed after they are sent by the SUT. It is necessary to take this into account in passive testing; otherwise we might obtain false positives or false negatives. In order to better assess the real causality between actions, we consider the case where each action is labelled with a timestamp giving the time when it was observed at the monitor. We also assume that we know bounds on network latency and so the timestamps allow us to determine additional causalities between actions. Our monitors are implemented as automata that take into account communications being asynchronous. Our solution checks properties against traces in polynomial time and has low storage requirements. Therefore, our proposal is suitable for real-time passive testing.

show abstract

A survey on formal active and passive testing with applications to the cloud

Abstract: International audienceIn this paper we review the main lines of work dealing with formal approaches to testing. This survey is divided into two main parts: active and passive testing. In addition, we overview some of the main approaches to testing (in) the clou

Cited by 36 publications

References 72 publications

A verified and optimized Stream X‐Machine testing method, with application to cloud service certification

A verified and optimized Stream X‐Machine testing method, with application to cloud service certification

Model-driven interoperability: engineering heterogeneous IoT systems

Passive testing with asynchronous communications and timestamps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About