Testing equivalences for processes

Nicola, Rocco De; Hennessy, Matthew

doi:10.1007/bfb0036936

Cited by 194 publications

(333 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

332

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much research has also been devoted to conformance testing of service specifications and their implementations [8], [27], [59], [67]. Our work also defines an equivalence relationship between the event interface and the service implementation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 96%

Whitening SOA Testing via Event Exposure

Jacobsen

2013

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whitening the testing of service-oriented applications can provide service consumers confidence on how well an application has been tested. However, to protect business interests of service providers and to prevent information leakage, the implementation details of services are usually invisible to service consumers. This makes it challenging to determine the test coverage of a service composition as a whole and design test cases effectively. To address this problem, we propose an approach to whiten the testing of service compositions based on events exposed by services. By deriving event interfaces to explore only necessary test coverage information from service implementations, our approach allows service consumers to determine test coverage based on selected events exposed by services at runtime without releasing the service implementation details. We also develop an approach to design test cases effectively based on event interfaces concerning both effectiveness and information leakage. The experimental results show that our approach outperforms existing testing approaches for service compositions with up to 49 percent more test coverage and an up to 24 percent higher fault-detection rate. Moreover, our solution can trade off effectiveness, efficiency, and information leakage for test case generation.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 96%

Whitening SOA Testing via Event Exposure

Jacobsen

2013

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As regards process calculi, may testing has been studied e.g. for CCS by De Nicola and Hennessy [14]. Informally, by quantifying over any potential user code, we let user code internally implement any test on the behaviour of sessions and decide when to report the result of a test as a "failure"; then, we show that F configurations using our session implementations have no more test failures than F+S configurations.…”

Section: Testing Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A secure compiler for session abstractions

Corin

Deniélou

Fournet

et al. 2008

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distributed applications can be structured as parties that exchange messages according to some prearranged communication patterns. These sessions (or contracts, or protocols) simplify distributed programming: when coding a role for a given session, each party just has to follow the intended message flow, under the assumption that the other parties are also compliant.In an adversarial setting, remote parties may not be trusted to play their role. Hence, defensive implementations also have to monitor one another, in order to detect any deviation from the assigned roles of a session. This task involves low-level coding below session abstractions, thus giving up most of their benefits.We explore language-based support for sessions. We extend the ML language with session types that express flows of messages between roles, such that well-typed programs always play their roles. We compile session type declarations to cryptographic communication protocols that can shield programs from any low-level attempt by coalitions of remote peers to deviate from their roles. Our main result is that, when reasoning about programs that use our session implementation, one can safely assume that all session peers comply with their roles -without trusting their remote implementations.

show abstract

“…Therefore several behavioural equivalences [4,5,15,19,20,21,25] have been defined. These often distinguish an unobservable -or internal -action from observable actions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimizing the number of transitions with respect to observation equivalence

Eloranta

1991

BIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Labeled transition systems (Its) provide an operational semantics for many specification languages. In order to abstract unrelevant details of Its's, many behavioural equivalences have been defined; here observation equivalence is considered. We are interested in the following problem: Given afinite lts, which is the minimal observation equivalent Its corresponding to it?It is well known that the number of states of an Its can be minimized by applying a relational coarsest partition algorithm, However, the obtained lts is not unique (up to the renaming of the states): for an Its there may exist several observation equivalent lts's which have the minimal number of states but varying number of transitions. In this paper we show how the number of transitions can be minimized, obtaining a unique lts.

show abstract

Testing equivalences for processes

Cited by 194 publications

References 8 publications

Whitening SOA Testing via Event Exposure

Whitening SOA Testing via Event Exposure

A secure compiler for session abstractions

Minimizing the number of transitions with respect to observation equivalence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About