Conformance Testing with Labelled Transition Systems: Implementation Relations and Test Generation

This paper studies testing based on labelled transition systems, presenting two test generation algorithms with their corresponding implementation relations. The first algorithm assumes that implementations communicate with their environment via symmetric, synchronous interactions. It is based on the theory of testing equivalence and preorder, as is most of the testing theory for labelled transition systems, and it is found in the literature in some slightly different variations. The second algorithm is based on the assumption that implementations communicate with their environment via inputs and outputs. Such implementations are formalized by restricting the class of labelled transition systems to those systems that can always accept input actions. For these implementations a testing theory is developed, analogous to the theory of testing equivalence and preorder. It consists of implementation relations formalizing the notion of conformance of these implementations with respect to labelled transition system specifications, test cases and test suites, test execution, the notion of passing a test suite, and the test generation algorithm, which is proved to produce sound test suites for one of the implementation relations

Formal Methods in Conformance Testing: A Probabilistic Refinement

This paper refines the framework of ‘Formal Methods in Conformance Testing’ by introducing probabilities for concepts which have a stochastic nature. Test execution is refined into test runs, where each test run is considered as a stochastic process that returns a possible observa- tion with a certain probability. This implies that not every possible observation that could be made, will actually be made. The development process of an implementation from a specifica- tion is also viewed as a stochastic process that may result in a specific implementation with a certain probability. Together with a weight assignment on implementations this introduces a valuation measure on implementations. The test run probabilities and the valuation measures are integrated in generalized definitions of soundness and exhaustiveness, which can be used to compare test suites with respect to their ability to accept correct, and to reject erroneous implementations

Atomic Action Refinement in Model Based Testing

In model based testing (MBT) test cases are derived from a specification of the system that we want to test. In general the specification is more abstract than the implementation. This may result in 1) test cases that are not executable, because their actions are too abstract (the implementation does not understand them); or 2) test cases that are incorrect, because the specification abstracts from relevant behavior. The standard approach to remedy this problem is to rewrite the specification by hand to the required level of detail and regenerate the test cases. This is error-prone and time consuming. Another approach is to do some translation during test execution. This solution has no basis in the theory of MBT. We propose a framework to add the required level of detail automatically to the abstract specification and/or abstract test cases.\ud \ud This paper focuses on general atomic action refinement. This means that an abstract action is replaced by more complex behavior (expressed as a labeled transition system). With general we mean that we impose as few restrictions as possible. Atomic means that the actions that are being refined behave as if they were atomic, i.e., no other actions are allowed to interfere

Scenarios-based testing of systems with distributed ports

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 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 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 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 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 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)