Test case design based on Z and the classification-tree method

Singh, Harbhajan; Conrad, Mirko; Sadeghipour, Sadegh

doi:10.1109/icfem.1997.630406

Cited by 52 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given a specification (or its functional units, which are smaller units of the specification whose corresponding subsystems can be tested independently), an early step in CHOC'LATE (Chen et al 2003;Poon et al 2010) and CTM (Cain et al 2004;Chen et al 2000;Grochtmann and Grimm 1993;Hierons et al 2003;Singh et al 1997) is to identify categories and their associated choices. (Note that identifying categories and choices, or their equivalents, is also a necessary step in domain testing (Beizer 1990), equivalence partitioning (Myers 2004), and in-parameter-order (Lei and Tai 1998;Tai and Lei 2002).…”

Section: Identification Of Categories Choices and Their Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, an integrated classification-tree methodology (Cain et al 2004;Chen et al 2000) and CHOiCe reLATion framEwork (CHOC'LATE) (Chen et al 2003;Poon et al 2010) were also proposed. (The integrated classification-tree methodology (Cain et al 2004;Chen et al 2000) is an extension to the ''original'' classification-tree method (Grochtmann and Grimm 1993;Hierons et al 2003;Singh et al 1997). For ease of presentation, they will be collectively referred to as the Classification-Tree Methodology (CTM).)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because the comprehensiveness of a test suite determines the scope of testing and in turn the chance of revealing software failures. Not surprisingly, numerous software practitioners and researchers have spent a lot of effort to develop test suite generation methodologies, including domain testing (Beizer 1990), equivalence partitioning (Myers 2004), in-parameter-order (Lei and Tai 1998;Tai and Lei 2002), the category-partition method (Ostrand and Balcer 1988), and the classification-tree method (Grochtmann and Grimm 1993;Hierons et al 2003;Singh et al 1997). Recently, an integrated classification-tree methodology (Cain et al 2004;Chen et al 2000) and CHOiCe reLATion framEwork (CHOC'LATE) (Chen et al 2003;Poon et al 2010) were also proposed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contributions of tester experience and a checklist guideline to the identification of categories and choices for software testing

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An early step for most black-box testing methods is to identify a set of categories and choices (or their equivalents) from the specification. The identification is often performed in an ad hoc manner, thus the quality of categories and choices is in doubt. Poorly identified categories and choices will affect the comprehensiveness of test cases. In this paper, we describe several comparative studies using three commercial specifications and discuss the major results. The objectives of our studies are (a) to investigate the differences in the types and amounts of mistakes made between inexperienced and experienced software testers in an ad hoc identification approach and (b) to determine the extent of mistake reduction after discussing the mistakes with the software testers and providing them with an identification checklist.

show abstract

Section: Identification Of Categories Choices and Their Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contributions of tester experience and a checklist guideline to the identification of categories and choices for software testing

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…GCOV is a test coverage analysis software for the C language, and LCOV is a graphical front-end for GCOV that generates coverage reports in HTML. The version of GCOV used was the one integrated into Xcode 7.2 10 , an integrated development environment (IDE) for software development on OS X, and the version of LCOV used was 1.2.…”

Section: Code Coveragementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formal methods and software testing are two techniques with this purpose. Many researchers have tried to combine these two techniques to take advantage of their most interesting aspects ( [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]). This combination can bring benefits such as reduction of development costs through the application of verification techniques in the initial development phases, when faults are cheaper to be fixed, and automatic generation of tests from formal specifications [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical study of test generation with BETA

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: BETA (Bbased testing approach) is a toolsupported approach to generate test cases from Bmethod specifications through the application of input space partitioning and logical coverage criteria. The BETA tool automates the whole process, from the design of abstract test cases to the generation of executable test scripts. Methods: In this paper, we present an empirical study that was performed to evaluate and contribute to the development of BETA. The study evaluated the applicability of BETA on problems with different characteristics and used techniques of code coverage and mutation analysis to measure the quality of the generated test cases. The study was carried out in different rounds, and the results of each round were used as a reference for the improvement of the approach and its supporting tool. Results: These case studies were relevant not only for the evaluation of BETA but also to evaluate how different features affect the usability of the approach and the quality of the test cases and to compare the quality of the test cases generated using different coverage criteria. Conclusions:The results of this study showed that (1) BETAgenerated test scenarios for the different criteria follow theoretical expectations in terms of criteria subsumption; (2) the BETA implementation of the logical criteria generates more efficient test sets regarding code and mutation coverage than the input space partitioning ones; (3) it is important to go beyond the strict requirements of the criteria by adding some additional variation (randomization) of the input data; and (4) the algorithms designed to combine test requirements into test cases need to deal carefully with infeasible (logically unsatisfiable) combinations.

show abstract

Testing refinements of state-based formal specifications

Derrick

Boiten

1999

Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A specification provides a concise description of a system, and can be used as both the benchmark against which any implementation is tested, and also as a means to generate tests. Formal specifications have potential advantages over informal descriptions because they offer the possibility of reducing the costs of testing by automating part of the testing process. This observation has led to considerable interest in developing test generation techniques from formal specifications, and a number of different methods have been derived for state‐based formalisms such as Z, B and VDM. However, after tests have been derived from a formal specification, the specification might be refined further before it is implemented, and therefore a mechanism is needed to relate the abstract tests to the refined implementation. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a method by exploring the relationship between testing and refinement. In this paper a model for test generation is used which constructs a finite state machine (FSM) from a Z specification by using a Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) partition analysis of the state and operations. The finite state machine is then used to derive suitable test suites. The paper decribes a way of calculating an FSM for a refinement from an abstract FSM together with the information about the refinement embodied in the retrieve relation. This means that it is possible to test an implementation by generating a new concrete finite state machine from a set of abstract tests. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Test case design based on Z and the classification-tree method

Cited by 52 publications

References 12 publications

Contributions of tester experience and a checklist guideline to the identification of categories and choices for software testing

Contributions of tester experience and a checklist guideline to the identification of categories and choices for software testing

An empirical study of test generation with BETA

Testing refinements of state-based formal specifications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About