System testing for object‐oriented systems with test case prioritization

Kundu, Debasish; Sarma, Monalisa; Samanta, Debasis; Mall, Rajib

doi:10.1002/stvr.407

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[Houmb et al 2010;Navarro et al 2010;Pires et al 2011]), and similarly, from the ST perspective, test generation from design artifacts (e.g. [Xu et al 2010;Kundu et al 2009;Pickin et al 2007]). Together with the low number of identified RE and ST alignment methods, this indicates that the envisioned closer collaboration between RE and ST researchers [Cheng and Atlee 2007;Bertolino 2007] is still in its early development, that there is potential in streamlining the efforts in the respective areas, and that the proposed taxonomy can indicate gaps in research.…”

Section: Lessons Learned and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A taxonomy for requirements engineering and software test alignment

Unterkalmsteiner

Feldt

Gorschek

2014

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Requirements Engineering and Software Testing are mature areas and have seen a lot of research. Nevertheless, their interactions have been sparsely explored beyond the concept of traceability. To fill this gap we propose a definition of requirements engineering and software test (REST) alignment, a taxonomy that characterizes the methods linking the respective areas, and a process to assess alignment. The taxonomy can support researchers to identify new opportunities for investigation, as well as practitioners to compare alignment methods and evaluate alignment, or lack thereof. We constructed the REST taxonomy by analyzing alignment methods published in literature, iteratively validating the emerging dimensions. The resulting concept of an information dyad characterizes the exchange of information required for any alignment to take place. We demonstrate use of the taxonomy by applying it on five in-depth cases and illustrate angles of analysis on a set of thirteen alignment methods. In addition we developed an assessment framework (REST-bench), applied it in an industrial assessment, and showed that it, with a low effort, can identify opportunities to improve REST alignment. Although we expect that the taxonomy can be further refined, we believe that the information dyad is a valid and useful construct to understand alignment.

show abstract

Section: Lessons Learned and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A taxonomy for requirements engineering and software test alignment

Unterkalmsteiner

Feldt

Gorschek

2014

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…STOOP. Kundu et al (2009) proposed this technique, which receives sequence diagrams as input. The algorithm converts the input diagrams into a graph representation called as Sequence Graph (SG) and then merges them into a single SG.…”

Section: Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, in the MBT context, we can find proposals to apply general test case prioritization from UML diagrams, such as: i) the technique proposed by Kundu et al (2009) where sequence diagrams are used as input; and ii) the technique proposed by Sapna and Mohanty (2009) where activity diagrams are used as input. We investigate both techniques in this paper.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revealing influence of model structure and test case profile on the prioritization of test cases in the context of model-based testing

Ouriques

Cartaxo

Machado

2015

J Softw Eng Res Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Test case prioritization techniques aim at defining an order of test cases that favor the achievement of a goal during test execution, such as revealing failures as earlier as possible. A number of techniques have already been proposed and investigated in the literature and experimental results have discussed whether a technique is more successful than others. However, in the context of model-based testing, only a few attempts have been made towards either proposing or experimenting test case prioritization techniques. Moreover, a number of factors that may influence on the results obtained still need to be investigated before more general conclusions can be reached. Methods: In order to evaluate factors that potentially affect the performance of test case prioritization techniques, we perform three empirical studies, an exploratory one and two experiments. The first study focus on expose the techniques to a common and fair environment, since the investigated techniques have never been studied together, and observe their behavior. The following two experiments aim at observing the effects of two factors: the structure of the model and the profile of the test cases that fail. We designed the experiments using the one-factor-at-a-time strategy. Results: The first study suggests that the investigated techniques performs differently, however other factors, aside from the test suites and number of failures, affect the techniques, motivating further investigation. As results from the two experiments, on one hand, the model structure do not affect significantly the investigated techniques. On the other hand, we are able to state that the profile of the test case that fails may have a definite influence on the performance of the techniques investigated. Conclusions: Through these studies, we conclude that, a fair evaluation involving test case prioritization techniques must take into account, in addition to the techniques and the test suites, different characteristics of the test cases that fail as variable.

show abstract

“…UML being a visual modeling language, supports modeling different views of software and has found wide acceptance among software practitioners. The UML design models which are primarily constructed to serve as software design specifications, have found applications in many software engineering activities such as testing (Ali et al, 2007;Bandyopadhyay and Ghosh, 2009;Briand and Labiche, 2002;Gallagher et al, 2006;Kundu et al, 2009), traceability analysis, maintenance etc. In this regard, we may note that UML model-based analysis often use message paths (Binder, 1999;Fraikin and Leonhardt, 2002;Nayak and Samanta, 2009;Pilskalns et al, 2003;Sarma et al, 2007) object-states (Ali et al, 2007;Bandyopadhyay and Ghosh, 2009;Gallagher et al, 2006), which are explicitly captured in UML sequence and statechart diagrams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%