International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 107–119 | Cite as

Model-based automatic test case generation for automotive embedded software testing

Article

Abstract

We propose a method to automatically generate software and hardware test cases from a UML model developed through a model-based development process. Where languages such as source-code languages are used within the model, input and expected values for each test case are generated using a custom parser. As a next step, unit test cases are combined to generate integration test cases using a bottom-up approach. Then these cases are converted into hardware test cases for approval testing of embedded systems, using XQuery and hardware mapping tables. We demonstrate this process by applying it to the power window switch module of a Hyundai Santa Fe vehicle. Our approach provides an automatic testing procedure for embedded systems developed by model-based methods, and generates test cases efficiently using a recombination of signals. In conclusion, our proposed method could help reduce the resources needed for test case generation from software to hardware.

Keywords

Software testing Test case generation Model-based development Unified Modeling Language (UML) Integration testing Power window switch module Approval testing Hardware testing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anand, S., Burke, E., Chen, T. Y., Clark, J., Cohen, M. B., Grieskamp, W., Harman, M., Harrold, M. J., Mcminn, P. and Bertolino, A. (2013). An orchestrated survey on automated software test case generation. J. Systems and Software 86, 8, 1978–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beizer, B. (2003). Software Testing Techniques. Dreamtech Press. New Delhi, India.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertolino, A. (2001). Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge–SWEBOK. IEEE Press. Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bertsimas, D. and Tsitsiklis, J. (1993). Simulated annealing. Statistical Science, 8, 10–15.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringmann, E. and Kramer, A. (2008). Model-based testing of automotive systems. IEEE 1st Int. Conf. Software Testing, Verification, and Validation, 485–493.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, T. Y., Poon, P.-L., Tang, S.-F. and Tse, T. (2012). DESSERT: A divide-and-conquer methodology for identifying categories, choices, and choice relations for test case generation. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering 38, 4, 794–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglass, B. P. (2002). Model Driven Architecture and Rhapsody. Technical Report. I-Logix.Google Scholar
  8. Florin Pinte, F. S. and Norbert, O. (2008). Automatic generation of optimized integration test data by genetic algorithms. Software Engineering Workshops W. Maalej, B. Bruegge (Hrsg.)), Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Fraser, G. and Wotawa, F. (2007). Using LTL rewriting to improve the performance of model-checker based testcase generation. Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop Advances in Model-based Testing, London, UK, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gulia, P. and Chillar, R. S. (2012). A new approach to generate and optimize test cases for UML state diagram using genetic algorithm. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 37, 3, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartmann, J., Imoberdorf, C. and Meisinger, M. (2000). UML-based integration testing. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 25, 5, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heumann, J. (2001). Generating Test Cases from Use Cases. http://students.mimuw.edu.pl/~zbyszek/posi/GeneratingTestCasesFromUseCasesJune01.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. Kay, M. (2007). Xsl Transformations (xslt) Version 2.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20Google Scholar
  14. Shin, K.-W., Kim, S. S. and Lim, D.-J. (2013). Automatic test-case generation for hardware-in-the-loop testing of automotive body control modules. SAE Paper No. 2013-01-0161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lefticaru, R. and Ipate, F. (2007). Automatic state-based test generation using genetic algorithms. IEEE Int. Symp. Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing, SYNASC, 188–195.Google Scholar
  16. Leitner, A., Oriol, M., Zeller, A., Ciupa, I. and Meyer, B. (2007). Efficient unit test case minimization. Proc. Twenty-second IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Automated Software Engineering, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Myers, G. J., Sandler, C. and Badgett, T. (2011). The Art of Software Testing. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Offutt, J. and Abdurazik, A. (1999). Generating Tests from UML Specifications. UML’ 99–The Unified Modeling Language. Spriger-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  19. Ogata, S. and Matsuura, S. (2010). A method of automatic integration test case generation from UML-based scenario. WSEAS Trans. Information Science and Applications 7, 4, 598–607.Google Scholar
  20. Samuel, P., Mall, R. and Bothra, A. K. (2008). Automatic test case generation using unified modeling language (UML) state diagrams. IET Software 2, 2, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samuel, P., Mall, R. and Kanth, P. (2007). Automatic test case generation from UML communication diagrams. Information and Software Technology 49, 2, 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shafique, M. and Labiche, Y. (2010). A Systematic Review of Model Based Testing Tool Support. Carleton University, Canada, Tech. Rep. Technical Report SCE-10-04.Google Scholar
  23. Shin, K., Kim, S., Park, S. and Lim, D. (2014). Automated test case generation for automotive embedded software testing using XMI-based UML model transformations. SAE Paper No. 2014-01-0315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. W3C (2010). XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language. Second Edition ed.Google Scholar
  25. Windisch, A., Wappler, S. and Wegener, J. (2007). Applying particle swarm optimization to software testing. Proc. 9th Annual Conf. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, London, UK, 1121–1128.Google Scholar
  26. Hartig, W., Habermann, A. and Mottok, J. (2009). Modelbased Testing for Better Quality. http://www.vector.com/portal/medien/cmc/press/PND/Modellbasiertes_Testen_ElektronikAutomotive_200903_PressArticle_EN.pdfGoogle Scholar
  27. Tung, Y.-W. and Aldiwan, W. S. (2000). Automating test case generation for the new generation mission software system. Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf., 431–437.Google Scholar
  28. Zelkowitz, M. V. (1978). Perspectives in software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 10, 2, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J. and Sheng, Q. Z. (2003). Quality driven web services composition. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. World Wide Web, Budapest, Hungary, 411–421.Google Scholar
  30. Zhan, Y. and Clark, J. A. (2005). Search-based mutation testing for Simulink models. Proc. 7th Annual Conf. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Washington DC, USA, 1061–1068.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronic Systems EngineeringHanyang UniversityGyeonggiKorea

Personalised recommendations