MCCFG: an MOF-based multiple condition control flow graph for automatic test case generation
- 230 Downloads
Requirement-based testing (RBT) is widely known for the efficient testing in the limited resources. However RBT is difficult to generate automatic test cases; thus it needs complex methods. This paper suggests our automatic test case generation for all coverage (statement, condition, decision, condition/decision, modified condition/decision, and multiple condition coverage) based on the model-based testing. To do this, we extend the original control flow graph with multiple conditions for all condition related coverage, which is called multiple conditions control flow graph, and adapt a model transformation using metamodel mechanism for test case generation. As a result, our proposed method successfully applies to the prior test requirement.
KeywordsAutomatic test case generation Control flow graph (CFG) Coverage-based testing Multiple condition control flow graph (MCCFG)
This research was supported by the Human Resource Training Program for Regional Innovation and Creativity through the Ministry of Education and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015H1C1A1035548).
- 1.Kim, H.N., Park, S.M., Kim, D.H.: Current technology trends in embedded software. Commun. Korean Inst. Inform. Sci. Eng. 24(8), 5–11 (2006)Google Scholar
- 3.Kwon, W.I.: The necessity of testing software for software quality improvement. FKII Digit. 365, 66–69 (2008)Google Scholar
- 6.Kwon, W.I., Park, C.E.Y., Lee, H.J., Cho, H.I.: Practical Software Testing Foundation. Software Testing Alliances (2008)Google Scholar
- 9.OMG, MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping, v2.1.1, OMG Available Specification (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Merks, E., Paternostro, M.: EMF: eclipse modeling framework. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2008)Google Scholar
- 11.Muchnick, S.: Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
- 14.Rountev, A., Kagan, S., Sawin, J.: Coverage criteria for testing of object interactions in sequence diagrams. In: Proceedings of Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 289–304 (2005)Google Scholar
- 15.Cardoso, J., Sibertin-Blanc, C.: Ordering actions in sequence diagrams of UML. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 3–14 (2001)Google Scholar
- 16.Garousi, V., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: Control flow analysis of UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 160–174 (2005)Google Scholar
- 17.OMG, Unified Modeling Language Superstructure Version 2.4, ptc/2010-11-14Google Scholar