Agreement between conformance and composition
In our previous paper , a new model of a Labeled Transition System (LTS)-type implementation was proposed. In ordinary LTSs, transitions are labeled by actions; therefore, they can be called LTSs of actions. The new model is an LTS of observations; in this model, observations and test actions (buttons) are used instead of actions. This model generalizes many testing semantics that are based on the LTS of actions but use additional observations (refusals, ready sets, etc.). Moreover, systems with priority, which are not described by the LTS of actions, are simulated uniformly. In the present paper, we develop this approach by focusing on the composition of systems. The point is that, on observation traces, one cannot define a composition with respect to which a composition of LTSs would possess the property of additivity: the set of traces of a composition of LTSs coincides with the set of all pairwise compositions of traces of LTS operands. This is explained by the fact that an observation in a composition state is not calculated based on observations in states-operands. In this paper, we propose an approach that eliminates this drawback. To this end, we label the transitions of LTSs by symbols (events) that, on the one hand, can be composed to guarantee the property of additivity, and, on the other hand, can be used to generate observations under testing: a transition by an event gives rise to an observation related to this event. This model is called an LTS of events. In this paper, we define (1) a transformation of an LTS of events into an LTS of observations to conform with the principles of our previous paper ; (2) a composition of LTSs of events; (3) a composition of specifications that preserves conformance: a composition of conformal implementations is conformal to a composition of specifications; and (4) a uniform simulation of LTSs of actions in terms of the LTSs of events, which allows one to consider an implementation in any interaction semantics admissible for LTSs of actions. In this case, a composition of LTSs of events obtained as a result of simulation of the original LTSs of actions is equivalent to the LTS of events obtained as a result of simulation of the composition of these LTSs of actions.
KeywordsExternal Action Event Trace Loop Transition Synchronous Event Interaction Semantic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bourdonov, I.B., Kossatchev, A.S., and Kuliamin, V.V., Teoriya sootvetstviya dlya sistem s blokirovkami i razrusheniem (Conformance Theory for Systems with Blockings and Destruction), Moscow: Nauka, 2008.Google Scholar
- 4.Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Systems with priorities: Conformance, testing, and composition, Tr. Inst. Syst. Program., 2008, no. 14.1.Google Scholar
- 5.Bourdonov, I.B. and Kossatchev, A.S., Systems with priorities: Conformance, testing, and composition, Program. Comput. Software, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 198–211].Google Scholar
- 6.Bourdonov, I.B., Teoriya konformnosti (Funktsional’noe testirovanie programmnykh system na osnove formal’nykh modelei) (Conformance Theory: Functional Testing of Software Systems on the Basis of Formal Models), Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publ., 2011.Google Scholar
- 7.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., Springer, 1990, vol. 458, pp. 278–297.Google Scholar
- 8.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., Springer, 1993, vol. 715, pp. 66–81.Google Scholar
- 9.Milner, R., Modal characterization of observable machine behavior, Proceedings CAAP 81, Astesiano, G. and Bohm, C., Eds., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Springer, 1981, vol. 112, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
- 10.Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating sequential processes, in On the Construction of Programs-An Advanced Course, McKeag, R.M. and Macnaghten, A.M., Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980, pp. 229–254.Google Scholar
- 12.Tretmans, J., Test generation with inputs, outputs and repetitive quiescence, in Software-Concepts and Tools, 1996, vol. 17,issue 3.Google Scholar
- 13.van der Bijl, M., Rensink, A., and Tretmans, J., Compositional testing with ioco, Formal Approaches to Software Testing, Third International Workshop, FATES 2003, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 6th, 2003, Petrenko, A. and Ulrich, A., Eds., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Springer, 1981, vol. 2931, pp. 86–100.Google Scholar
- 14.van der Bijl, M., Rensink, A., and Tretmans, J., Component Based Testing with ioco, CTIT Technical Report TR-CTIT-03-34, University of Twente, 2003.Google Scholar