Advertisement

Test descriptions with ETSI TDL

  • Philip Makedonski
  • Gusztáv Adamis
  • Martti Käärik
  • Finn Kristoffersen
  • Michele Carignani
  • Andreas Ulrich
  • Jens Grabowski
Article

Abstract

To address the need for abstract, high-level test descriptions that can be shared among different stakeholders, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) commissioned the design of the Test Description Language (TDL). TDL is designed as a domain-specific language for testing, consisting of a standardised abstract syntax (meta-model) and concrete syntaxes for textual specification, graphical design, and model exchange between tools. Its main purpose is to support a test methodology that is followed in the standardisation work for software-intense systems at ETSI and is applicable in industrial projects as well. TDL enables the formal specification of both test objectives derived from system requirements and test descriptions refining the test objectives. The latter serve as blueprint for the implementation of executable tests. A standardised mapping of TDL specifications to test scripts in the standardised test execution language TTCN-3 widens the reach of TDL to ensure compatibility and consistency of generated executable tests. An open-source toolset has been developed as a common platform to accelerate the adoption of TDL and lower the barrier to entry for users and tool vendors. Reports from pilot applications within three ETSI standardisation groups demonstrate the practicality of the chosen approach.

Keywords

Model-based testing Test description language Domain-specific modelling Test methodology Testing in standardisation 

Notes

Funding information

The work on Test Description Language (TDL) has been partially funded by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in the context of the Specialist Task Force (STF) projects 454, 476, 492, and 522 between 2013 and 2017.

References

  1. ASAM ATX (2012). Automotive test exchange format (ATX) v1.0.0. ASAM standard. https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/atx/.
  2. Bouquet, F, Grandpierre, C, Legeard, B, Peureux, F, Vacelet, N, Utting, M. (2007). A subset of precise uml for model-based testing. In Proceedings of the 3rd Int’l workshop on advances in model-based testing (A-MOST’07) (pp. 95–104). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. ETSI EG 203 130 (2013). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Model-Based Testing (MBT); methodology for standardised test specification development, v1.1.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  4. ETSI ES 201 873-1 (2016). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); the testing and test control notation version 3; Part 1: core language, v4.8.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  5. ETSI ES 202 553 (2009). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); TPLan: a notation for expressing test purposes, v1.2.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  6. ETSI ES 202 782 (2015). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Testing and Test Control Notation version 3; TTCN-3 extensions: performance and real-time testing, v1.3.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  7. ETSI ES 202 786 (2017). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Testing and Test Control Notation version 3; TTCN-3 Extensions: support of interfaces with continuous signals, v1.4.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  8. ETSI ES 202 951 (2011). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Model-Based Testing (MBT); requirements for modelling notations, v1.1.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  9. ETSI ES 203 119-1 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 1: abstract syntax and associated semantics, v1.4.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  10. ETSI ES 203 119-2 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 2: graphical syntax, v1.3.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  11. ETSI ES 203 119-3 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 3: exchange format, v1.3.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  12. ETSI ES 203 119-4 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 4: structured test objective specification (extension), v1.3.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  13. ETSI ES 203 119-5 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 5: UML profile for TDL, v1.1.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  14. ETSI ES 203 119-6 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 6: mapping to TTCN-3, v1.1.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  15. ETSI ES 203 119-7 (2018). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); The Test Description Language (TDL); Part 7: extended test configurations, v1.1.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  16. ETSI TR 102 840 (2011). Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Model-Based Testing (MBT); Model-Based Testing in Standardisation, v1.2.1 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Sophia-Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  17. Grossmann, J, & Müller, W. (2006). A formal behavioral semantics for testML. In Second international symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation, 2006. ISoLA 2006 (pp. 441-448).Google Scholar
  18. Guduvan, A, Waeselynck, H, Wiels, V, Durrieu, G, Fusero, Y, Schieber, M. (2013). A meta-model for tests of avionics embedded systems. In Proc. of the 1st Int’l conference on model-driven engineering and software development (MODELSWARD) (pp. 5–13). Barcelona.Google Scholar
  19. Hammond, S, & Umphress, D. (2012). Test driven development: the state of the practice. In Proc. of the 50th annual southeast regional conference (pp. 158–163). ACM.Google Scholar
  20. ISO 13209 (2011). Road vehicles – Open Test sequence eXchange format (OTX) – Parts 1–3. International ISO multipart standard No. 13209-1 to 3. https://www.iso.org/ics/43.020/x/.
  21. ISO/IEC 9646-1 (1994). Information technology – open systems interconnection – conformance testing methodology and framework – Part 1: general concepts. International ISO/IEC multipart standard No. 9646-1. https://www.iso.org/standard/17473.html.
  22. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3 (2013). ISO/IEC/IEEE international standard – software and systems engineering – software testing – part 3: test documentation. Tech. rep., ISO/IEC/IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=6588538.
  23. ITU-T Z120 (2011). Series Z: languages and general software aspect for telecommunication systems – formal description techniques (FDT) – message sequence chart (MSC). International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation Z.120 (02/11), document http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.120-201102-I/en.
  24. ITU-T Z120 Annex B (1998). Formal semantics of message sequence charts, 04/98. International telecommunication union, recommendation Z.120 Annex B (04/98), document http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.120-199804-I!AnnB/en.
  25. Kaner, C. (2003). On scenario testing. STQE Magazine, 16–22.Google Scholar
  26. Kanstrén, T., Puolitaival, O.P, Rytky, V.M., Saarela, A., Keränen, J.S. (2012). Experiences in setting up domain-specific model-based testing. In 2012 IEEE International conference on industrial technology (ICIT) (pp. 319–324).Google Scholar
  27. Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C. (2009). On the evolution of OCL for capturing structural constraints in modelling languages. In Rigorous methods for software construction and analysis. Essays Dedicated to Egon Börger on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (pp. 204– 218).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Makedonski, P, Adamis, G, Käärik, M, Kristoffersen, F, Zeitoun, X. (2016). Evolving the ETSI test description language. In Proc. of the 9th system analysis and modelling conference (SAM 2016). Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Micskei, Z, & Waeselynck, H. (2010). The many meanings of UML 2 Sequence Diagrams: A survey. Software & Systems Modeling, 10(4), 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OMG MARTE. (2011). UML profile for MARTE: modeling and analysis of real-time embedded systems, version 1.1. object management group, document number: formal/2011-06-02, document http://www.omg.org/spec/MARTE/1.1/.
  31. OMG MOF (2014). Meta object facility core, version 2.4.2. Object management group, document number: formal/2014-04-05, document http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.4.2/.
  32. OMG OCL (2012). Object constraint language, version 2.3.1. Object management group, document number: formal/2012-05-09, document http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.3.1/.
  33. OMG UML (2015). Unified modeling language, version 2.5, chapter 12.3 (profiles). Object management group, document number: formal/2015-03-01, document http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/.
  34. OMG UTP (2013). UML testing profile, version 1.2. Object management group, document number: formal/2013-04-03, document http://www.omg.org/spec/UTP/1.2/.
  35. OMG XMI (2014). XML metadata interchange, version 2.4.2. Object management group, document number: formal/2014-04-06, document http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.5.1/.
  36. Pajunen, T, Takala, T, Katara, M. (2011). Model-based testing with a general purpose keyword-driven test automation framework. In 4th IEEE Int’l conference on software testing, verification and validation, ICST 2012 (pp. 242–251). Berlin: Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
  37. Razorcat (2014). CCDL whitepaper. Razorcat Technical Report, 23 January 2014. https://www.razorcat.com/de/downloads-ccdl.html.
  38. Solis, C, & Wang, X. (2011). A study of the characteristics of behaviour driven development. In 2011 37th EUROMICRO Conference on software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA) (pp. 383–387). IEEE.Google Scholar
  39. Ulrich, A, Jell, S, Votintseva, A, Kull, A. (2014). The ETSI test description language TDL and its application. In 2nd Int’l conference on model-driven engineering and software development (MODELSWARD) (pp. 601–608).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Test Competence CenterEricsson Hungary Ltd.BudapestHungary
  3. 3.Elvior OUTallinnEstonia
  4. 4.Cinderella ApSCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.Centre for Testing and InteroperabilityEuropean Telecommunications Standards InstituteSophia-AntipolisFrance
  6. 6.Corporate TechnologySiemens AGMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations