Determination of Test Configurations for Pair-Wise Interaction Coverage

Constraint Models for the Covering Test Problem

“…They claim good results for their techniques in comparison with a commercially-available method, AETG, described below. Williams [32] describes a method, TConfig, for constructing covering arrays (for t ¼ 2) from smaller Fbuilding blocks,_ which is fast and was found to give better results than IPO (described below) except for heterogeneous alphabets, i.e., when g is not uniform for all parameters. Hartman and Raskin [16] describe their CTS (Combinatorial Test Services) package which aims to find small covering arrays, using a variety of constructive methods and choosing the best result.…”

Comparative Benchmarking of Constraints T-Way Test Generation Strategy Based on Late Acceptance Hill Climbing Algorithm

“…However, the applicability of algebraic approaches is often restricted to small configurations (Yan and Zhang 2006;Lei, Kacker et al 2007). Orthogonal Arrays (OA) (Hedayat, Sloane et al 1999;Hartman and Raskin 2004), MOA (Mandl 1985) and TConfig (Williams 2002) are typical example of the strategies that are based on algebraic approach.…”

“…However, in the case where the number of pairs to be considered is significantly large, adopting computational approaches can be expensive due to the need to consider explicit enumeration from all the combination space. Example strategies that adopt this approach includes An Automatic Efficient Test Generator (AETG) (Cohen, Dalal et al 1996;Cohen, Dalal et al 1997), its variant (mAETG) , PICT [8,36], IPOG (Lei, Kacker et al 2007), Jenny (Pallas 2003), TVG (Yu-Wen and Aldiwan 2000; Arshem 2010), IRPS , GTWay (Klaib 2009;Zamli, Klaib et al 2011), MIPOG Younis and Zamli 2010), TConfig (Williams 2000;Williams 2010), TCG (Tung and Aldiwan 2000)). Another variant of the computational based approach is based on meta-heuristics algorithm including that of GA (Shiba, Tsuchiya et al 2004), HSS (Alsewari and Zamli 2012), PSTG Ahmed and Zamli 2011;Ahmed, Zamli et al 2012), SA (Stardom 2001;Cohen, Colbourn et al 2008), and ACA (Shiba, Tsuchiya et al 2004)).…”

“…In the last 20 years, many t-way strategies have been proposed in literature (including that of GTWay (Klaib 2009;Zamli, Klaib et al 2011), MIPOG Younis and Zamli 2010), TConfig (Williams 2000;Williams 2010), TCG (Tung and Aldiwan 2000), Jenny (Pallas 2003), TVG (Yu-Wen and Aldiwan 2000; Arshem 2010), IRPS , and TConfig (Williams 2000;Williams 2010)). Recently, researchers have also started to adopt meta-heuristics based strategies including that of Genetic Algorithm (GA) GA (Sthamer 1995;Shiba, Tsuchiya et al 2004;Bryce and Colbourn 2007;Afzal, Torkar et al 2009;Chen, Gu et al 2009;McCaffrey 2010), Ant Colony (ACS) ACA (Harman and Jones 2001;Shiba, Tsuchiya et al 2004;Wang, Xu et al 2008;Afzal, Torkar et al 2009;Chen, Gu et al 2009), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSTG) PSTG Ahmed and Zamli 2011;Ahmed, Zamli et al 2012), and Harmony Search Strategy (HSS) (Alsewari and Zamli 2012).…”

SITAF: Simulation-based Interface Testing Automation Framework for Robot Software Component

“…The ITCG module automatically generates test cases by extended test schemes based on specification-based testing techniques such as equivalence partition (Ostrand & Balcer, 1998), boundary value analysis (Hoffman et al, 1999), random test (Ntafos, 1997, Zhu, 1997, and pairwise test (Williams, 2000 The robot simulator for interface test provides a simulation control API and a virtual robot hardware API. The simulation control API is used to control the virtual test environment in the simulation.…”