Advertisement

Programming and Computer Software

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 247–263 | Cite as

Interaction semantics with refusals, divergence, and destruction

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

Abstract

Formal methods for testing the conformance of a software system to its specification are considered. The interaction semantics determines the testing capabilities, which are reduced to the observation of actions and refusals (absence of actions). The semantics is parameterized by the families of observable and unobservable refusals. The concept of destruction as a prohibited action that should be avoided in the course of interaction is introduced. The concept of safe testing, the implementation safety hypothesis, safe conformance, and generation of a complete test suite based on the specification are defined. Equivalences of traces, specifications, safety relations, and interaction semantics are examined. A specification completion is proposed that can be used to remove from the specification irrelevant (not included in the safely testable implementations) and nonconformal specification traces is proposed. The concept of total testing that detects all the errors in the implementation (rather than at least one error as is the case in complete testing) is introduced. On the basis of the analysis of dependences between errors, a method for the minimization of test suites is proposed. The problem of preserving the conformance under composition (the monotonicity of conformance) is investigated, and a monotone transformation of the specification solving this problem is proposed.

Keywords

Test Suite External Action Test Trace Label Transition System Testable Implementation 
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.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., Formalization of Test Experiments, Programmirovanie, 2007, no. 5, pp. 3–32 [Programming Comput. Software (Engl. Transl.), 2007, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 239–260].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., The Linear Time-Branching Time Spectrum II: The Semantics of Sequential Processes with Silent Moves, Proc. of CONCUR’93, Hildesheim, Germany, 1993, Best, E., Ed., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1993, vol. 715, pp. 66–81.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Procesalgebra. Programmatuurkunde, Deventer: Kluwer, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Langerak, R., A Testing Theory for LOTOS Using Deadlock Detection, in Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification IX, Brinksma, E., Scollo, G., and Vissers, C.A., Eds., North-Holland, 1990, pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phillips, I., Refusal Testing, Theor. Comput. Sci., 1987, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 241–284.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tretmans, J., Test Generation with Inputs, Outputs and Repetitive Quiescence, Software Concepts and Tools, 1996, vol. 17, no. 3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tretmans, J., Conformance Testing with Labelled Transition Systems: Implementation Relations and Test Generation, Comput. Networks ISDN Systems, 1996, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heerink, L., Ins and Outs in Refusal Testing, PhD Thesis, Enschede, Netherlands: Univ. of Twente, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoare, C.A.R., An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming, Commun. ACM, 1969, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 576–585.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Equivalent Interaction Semantics, in Trudy ISP RAN, 2008, no. 14.1, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuliamin, V.V., Software Development Technologies: Component-based Approach, Moscow: BiINOM, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milner, R., Communication and Concurrency, PrenticeHall, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jard, C., Jéron, T., Tanguy, L., and Viho, C., Remote Testing Can Be as Powerful as Local Testing, Formal Methods for Protocol Engineering and Distributed Systems, FORTE XII/PSTV XIX’99, Wu, J., Chanson, S., and Gao, Q., Eds., Beijing, 1999, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., Teoriya sootvetstviya dlya sistem s blokirovkami i razrusheniem (Conformance Theory for Systems with Refusals and Destruction), Moscow: Nauka, 2008.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lipaev, V.V., Testing Large Software Systems for Conformance to Requirements, Moscow: Globus, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Bijl, M., Resnik, A., and Tretmans, J., Compositional Testing with ioco, in Formal Approaches to Software Testing, Third Int. Workshop FATES 2003, Montreal, Quebec, 2003; Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2003, vol. 2931, pp. 86–100.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Bijl, M., Resnik, A., and Tretmans, J., Component Based Testing with ioco, CTIT Technical Report TR-CTIT-03-34, University of Twente, 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Revised Working Draft on “Framework: Formal Methods in Conformance Testing,” JTC1/SC21/WG1/Project 54/1, in ISO INterim Meeting/ITU-T, Paris, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Systems with Priorities: Conformance, Testing, and Composition, Programmirovanie, 2009, no. 4, pp. 24–40 [Programming Comput. Software (Engl. Transl.), 2009, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 198–211].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Testing Conformance Based on State Correspondence, Trudy ISP RAN, 2010, no. 18.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Generalized Semantics of Test Interaction, in Trudy ISP RAN, 2008, no. 15, pp. 69–106.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Complete Open-State Testing of Limitedly Nondeterministic Systems, Programmirovanie, 2009, no. 6, pp. 3–18 [Programming Comput. Software (Engl. Transl.), 2009, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 301–313].Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Testing with Semantics Transformation, in Trudy ISP RAN, 2009, no. 17, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for System ProgrammingRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations