Advertisement

Programming and Computer Software

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 198–211 | Cite as

Systems with priorities: Conformance, testing, and composition

  • I. B. Bourdonov
  • A. S. Kossatchev
Article

Abstract

An approach to modeling the components of distributed systems whose interaction is based on handling events with regard for their priorities is considered. Although the priority-based servicing of requests or messages is widely used in practice, the mathematical models of the interaction of such programs often neglect the priorities thus introducing extra nondeterminism in the description of their behavior. The proposed approach attempts to avoid this drawback by defining the parallel composition that provides a model for the interaction of this kind. The subject matter of this paper is the development of a formal theory of testing the components that use priorities. Within this theory, the concept of a safe execution of the model and the conformance relation between the models are introduced, and the generation of test suites that check conformity is considered.

Keywords

Composition Operator External Action Parallel Composition Label Transition System Conformance Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., The Linear Time—Branching Time Spectrum, Proc. of CONCUR’93, Baeten, J.C.M. and Klop, J.W., Eds., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1990, vol. 458, pp. 278–297.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., Formalization of Test Experiments, Programmirovanie, 2007, no. 5 [Programming Comput. Software (Engl. Transl.), 2007, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 239–260].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Conformance Theory for the Functional Testing of Software Systems Based on Formal Models, Doctoral (Math.) Dissertation, Moscow: Institute for System Programming, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008; http://www.ispras.ru/~RedVerst/Red-Verst/Publications/TR-01-2007.pdf.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., Teoriya sootvetstviya dlya system s blokirovkami i razrusheniem (Conformance Theory for Systems with Refusals and Destruction, Moscow: Nauka, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., The Linear Time—Branching Time Spectrum, Proc. of CONCUR’90, Baeten, J.C.M. and Klop, J.W., Eds., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1990, vol. 458, pp. 278–297.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milner, R., Modal Characterization of Observable Machine Behavior, Proc. CAAP, 1981, Astesiano, G. and Bohm, C., Eds., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1981, vol. 112, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petrenko, A., Yevstushenko, N., and Huo, J.L., Testing Transition Systems with Input and Output Testers, Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on Communicating Systems, TestCom’2003, Sophia, Antipolis, France, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Testing Components of a Distributed System, Trudy Vserossiiskoi konferentsii nauchnyi servis v seti Internet (Proc. of the All-Russia Conf. on the Research Services on the Internet), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 2005, pp. 63–65.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Verification of the Composition of a Distributed System, Trudy Vserossiiskoi konferentsii nauchnyi servis v seti Internet (Proc. of the All-Russia Conf. on the Research Services on the Internet), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 2005, pp. 67–69.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., Formal Conformance Testing of Systems with Refused Inputs and Forbidden Actions, Proc. of MBT, Vienna, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., “Security, Verification, and Conformance Theory,” in Materialy vtoroi mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii po problemam bezopasnosti I protivideistviya terrorizmu (Proc. of the Second Int. Conf. on Security Problems and Terrorism Counteractions), Moscow: MNTsMO, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heerink, L. and Tretmans, J., Refusal Testing for Classes of Transition Systems with Inputs and Outputs, in Formal Description Techniques and Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Chapman & Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heerink, L., Ins and Outs in Refusal Testing, PhD Thesis, Enschede, Netherlands: Univ. of Twente, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lestiennes, G. and Gaudel, M.-C., Test de systemes reactifs non receptifs, J. Europ. des Systemes Automatises, Modelisation des Systemes Reactifs, 2005, pp. 255–270.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milner, R., A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1980, vol. 92.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R., Communication and Concurrency, PrenticeHall, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for System ProgrammingRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations