Towards Automatic Distribution of Testers for Distributed Conformance Testing

Jard, Claude; Jéron, Thierry; Kahlouche, H.; Viho, César

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35394-4_22

Cited by 20 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the special issue targeted the broad scope of testing distributed and networked systems, where formal testing is well established [48,36,13,63,75,31,32], cloud computing represents the natural evolution of these systems and work on testing is in their initial stages. First, we would like to mention the difference between two apparently similar concepts: testing in the cloud and testing the cloud.…”

Section: Testing (In) the Cloudmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Testing (In) the Cloudmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this need not be a significant limitation since the tester might be able to choose to wait for a given period of time before supplying an input or may be sent an acknowledgement of the message having been received. It has been observed that where this is not appropriate, asynchronous communications can be represented through adding models of the communications channels [23]. This essentially corresponds to the testers interacting synchronously with a system composed of the SUT and the communications channels.…”

Section: Definition 5 Given S ∈ Iot S(i O)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can solve the controllability problems and is similar to the approach given in [23]. Where it is feasible to use mechanisms to synchronise the testers, this approach has the benefit of simplicity and also potentially allows the testers to observe the global trace that occurred.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An approach has been devised for distributing a global test case to produce a set of local test cases whose testing is controllable [23]. This work uses an agent, called an Election Service, that controls the testing process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This corresponds to the situation in which the SUT has physically distributed interfaces at which it interacts with its environment but that at each interface the tester interacts directly with the SUT. If communications between testers and the SUT is asynchronous then we can apply the standard approach in which we see testing as synchronous communications between the tester(s) and a system that includes the communications channels [23,34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Overcoming controllability problems in distributed testing from an input output transition system

Hierons

2011

Distrib. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper concerns the testing of a system with physically distributed interfaces, called ports, at which it interacts with its environment. We place a tester at each port and the tester at port p observes events at p only. This can lead to controllability problems, where the observations made by the tester at a port p are not sufficient for it to be able to know when to send an input. It is known that there are test objectives, such as executing a particular transition, that cannot be achieved if we restrict attention to test cases that have no controllability problems. This has led to interest in schemes where the testers at the individual ports send coordination messages to one another through an external communications network in order to overcome controllability problems. However, such approaches have largely been studied in the context of testing from a deterministic finite state machine. This paper investigates the use of coordination messages to overcome controllability problems when testing from an input output transition system and gives an algorithm for introducing sufficient messages. It also proves that the problem of minimising the number of coordination messages used is NP-hard.

show abstract

Scenarios‐based testing of systems with distributed ports

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright @ 2011 John Wiley & SonsDistributed systems are usually composed of several distributed components that communicate with their environment through specific ports. When testing such a system we separately observe sequences of inputs and outputs at each port rather than a global sequence and potentially cannot reconstruct the global sequence that occurred. Typically, the users of such a system cannot synchronise their actions during use or testing. However, the use of the system might correspond to a sequence of\ud scenarios, where each scenario involves a sequence of interactions with the system that, for example, achieves a particular objective. When this is the case there is the potential for there to be a significant\ud delay between two scenarios and this effectively allows the users of the system to synchronise between scenarios. If we represent the specification of the global system by using a state-based notation, we\ud say that a scenario is any sequence of events that happens between two of these operations. We can encode scenarios in two different ways. The first approach consists of marking some of the states of the specification to denote these synchronisation points. It transpires that there are two ways to interpret such models and these lead to two implementation relations. The second approach consists\ud of adding a set of traces to the specification to represent the traces that correspond to scenarios. We show that these two approaches have similar expressive power by providing an encoding from marked states to sets of traces. In order to assess the appropriateness of our new framework, we show that it represents a conservative extension of previous implementation relations defined in the context of the distributed test architecture: if we onsider that all the states are marked then we simply obtain ioco (the classical relation for single-port systems) while if no state is marked then we obtain dioco (our previous relation for multi-port systems). Finally, we concentrate on the study of controllable\ud test cases, that is, test cases such that each local tester knows exactly when to apply inputs. We give two notions of controllable test cases, define an implementation relation for each of these notions, and relate them. We also show how we can decide whether a test case satisfies these conditions.Research partially supported by the Spanish MEC project TESIS (TIN2009-14312-C02-01), the UK EPSRC project Testing of Probabilistic and Stochastic Systems (EP/G032572/1), and the UCM-BSCH programme to fund research groups (GR58/08 - group number 910606)

show abstract

Towards Automatic Distribution of Testers for Distributed Conformance Testing

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

Overcoming controllability problems in distributed testing from an input output transition system

Scenarios‐based testing of systems with distributed ports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About