Programming and Computer Software

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 201–209 | Cite as

FSM-based testing from user defined faults adapted to incremental and mutation testing

  • K. A. El-Fakih
  • R. Dorofeeva
  • N. V. Yevtushenko
  • G. V. Bochmann
Article

Abstract

We study the problem of deriving a test suite with guaranteed fault coverage from a given finite state machine specification with respect to some given user defined faults. We consider the case when an implementation under test can have more states than its specification while user defined faults are implemented in an arbitrary way. We show that our approach can be used for FSM-based incremental and mutation testing and correspondingly we investigate cases that can be used for reducing length of obtained test suites. In some cases, worst-case length of obtained test suite becomes polynomial. Experiments show significant gains is using our approach in comparison to testing the whole specification.

Keywords

conformance testing finite state machines model-based testing mutation testing incremental testing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bochmann, G. and Petrenko, A., Protocol Testing: Review of Methods and Relevance for Software Testing, Proc. of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 1994) (Seattle, 1994), pp. 109–123.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chow, T.S., Test Design Modeled by Finite-State Machines, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 1978, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 178–187.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Souza, S. de R., Maldonado, J.C., Fabbri, S.C.P.F., and De Souza, W.L., Mutation Testing Applied to Estelle Specifications, Proc. of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorofeeva, R., El-Fakih, K., and Yevtushenko, N., An Improved FSM-Based Conformance Testing Method, Proc. of the IFIP 25th International Conference on Formal Methods for Networked and Distributed Systems, Taiwan: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3731, 2005a, pp. 204–218.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorofeeva, R., El-Fakih, K., Maag, S., Cavalli, A.R., and Yevtushenko, N., Experimental Evaluation of FSM-Based Testing Methods, Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM05), Germany, 2005b, pp. 23–32.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dorofeeva, R., El-Fakih, K., Maag, S., Cavalli, A.R., and Yevtushenko, N., FSM-Based Conformance Testing Methods: a Survey Annotated with Experimental Evaluation, Inform. Software Technol. J., Elsevier, 2010, vol. 52, pp. 1286–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Fakih, K., Yevtushenko, N., and Bochmann, G.V., FSM-Based Incremental Conformance Testing Methods, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2004, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fabbri, S.C.P.F., Maldonado, J.C., Masiero, P.C., and Delamaro, M.E., Mutation Analysis Testing for Finite State Machines, Proc. of the 5th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. Monterey (California, 1994), pp. 220–229.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabbri, S.C.P.F., Maldonado, J.C., Delamaro, M.E., and Masiero, P.C., Proteum/FSM: A Tool to Support Finite State Machine Validation Based on Mutation Testing, Proc. of the XIX International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC1999) (Talca, Chile, 1999), pp. 96–104.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujiwara, S., Bochmann, G.V., Khendek, F., Amalou, M., and Ghedamsi, A., Test Selection Based on Finite State Models, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 1991, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gill, A., Introduction to the Theory of Finite-State Machines, McGraw-Hill, 1962.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hierons, R.M. and Merayo, M.G., Mutation Testing from Probabilistic and Stochastic Finite State Machines, J. Systems Software, 2009, vol. 82, no. 11, pp. 1804–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jia, Y. and Harman, M., An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing, King’s College, Londin, Crest Center, Technical Report TR-09-06.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koufareva, I., Petrenko, A., and Yevtushenko, N., Test Generation Driven by User-Defined Fault Models, Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Testing of Communicating Systems (TestCom 1999) (Hungary, 1999), pp. 215–233.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koufareva, I. and Dorofeeva, R., A Novel Modification of W-Method, Joint Bull. Novosibirsk Comput. Center and A.P. Ershov Inst. Inform. Systems, 2002, vol. 18, pp. 69–81.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, D. and Yannakakis, M., Testing Finite-State Machines: State Identification and Verification, IEEE Trans. Comput., 1994, vol. 43, no. 3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, D. and Yannakakis, M., Principles and Methods of Testing Finite State Machines-a Survey, Proc. IEEE, 1996, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 1090–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maldonado, J.C., Sugeta, T., and Wong, W.E., Mutation Testing Applied to Validate sdl Specifications, Proc. of the 16th IFIP International Conference on Testing of Communicating Systems (TestCom 2004), Springer LNCS 2978, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petrenko, A., Checking Experiments with Protocol Machines, Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems (IWPTS 1991) (Netherlands, 1991), pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petrenko, A. and Yevtushenko, N., Test Suite Generation for a fsm with a Given Type of Implementation Errors, Proc. of the 12th International Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (Canada, 1992), pp. 229–243.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N., Lebedev, A., and Das, A., Nondeterministic State Machines in Protocol Conformance Testing, Proc. of the IFIP 6th Sixth International Workshop on Protocol Test systems (France, 1993), pp. 363–378.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petrenko, A. and Yevtushenko, N., Testing from Partial Deterministic FSM Specifications, IEEE Trans. Comput., 2005, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 1154–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simao, A., Petrenko A., and Yevtushenko, N., Generating Reduced Tests for FSMs with Extra States, Proc. of the 21th International Conference on Testing of Communicating Systems and the 9th International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Testing of Software (TestCom/Fates 2009), LNCS 5826, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Starke, P., Abstract Automata, American Elsevier, 1972.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vasilevskii, M.P., Failure Diagnosis of Automata, Kibernetika, 1973, vol. 4, pp. 98–108.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vuong, S.T., Chan, W.W.L., and Ito, M.R., The UIOvMethod for Protocol Test Sequence Generation, Proc. of the IFIP International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, 1989, pp. 161–175.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yannakakis, M. and Lee, D., Testing Finite State Machines: Fault Detection, J. Comput. System Sci.. 1995, vol. 50, pp. 209–227.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yevtushenko, N. and Petrenko, A., Test Derivation Method for an Arbitrary Deterministic Automaton, in Automatic Control and Computer Sciences, USA: Allerton Press Inc., 1990, p. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. El-Fakih
    • 1
  • R. Dorofeeva
    • 2
  • N. V. Yevtushenko
    • 2
  • G. V. Bochmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringAmerican University of SharjahSharjahUAE
  2. 2.Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussia
  3. 3.University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations