Testing Real-Time Multi Input-Output Systems

  • Laura Brandán Briones
  • Ed Brinksma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3785)

Abstract

In formal testing, the assumption of input enabling is typically made. This assumption requires all inputs to be enabled anytime. In addition, the useful concept of quiescence is sometimes applied. Briefly, a system is in a quiescent state when it cannot produce outputs.

In this paper, we relax the input enabling assumption, and allow some input sets to be enabled while others remain disabled. Moreover, we also relax the general bound M used in timed systems to detect quiescence, and allow different bounds for different sets of outputs.

By considering the tioco M theory, an enriched theory for timed testing with repetitive quiescence, and allowing the partition of input sets and output sets, we introduce the mtioco \(_{\mathcal{M}}\) relation. A test derivation procedure which is nondeterministic and parameterized is further developed, and shown to be sound and complete wrt mtioco \(_{\mathcal{M}}\).

Keywords

Transition System Test Generation Testing Theory Output Channel Reachable State 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belinfante, A., Feenstra, J., de Vries, R., Tretmans, J., Goga, N., Feijs, L., Mauw, S., Heerink, L.: Formal test automation: A simple experiment. In: Csopaki, G., Dibuz, S., Tarnay, K. (eds.) Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 12, pp. 179–196. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohnenkamp, H., Belinfante, A.: Timed testing with torx. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Hayes, I.J., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) FM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3582, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinksma, E.: On the existence of canonical testers. In: Memorandum INF-87-5. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinksma, E.: A theory for the derivation of tests. In: Aggarwal, S., Sabnani, K. (eds.) Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VIII, pp. 63–74. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandán Briones, L., Brinksma, E.: A test generation framework for quiescent real-time systems. In: Grabowski, J., Nielsen, B. (eds.) FATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3395, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2005), http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/research/testing/files/BBB04.ps.gz CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brandán Briones, L., Brinksma, E.: Testing real-time multi input-output systems. Extended Version. Number TR-CTIT-05-40 (2005), http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/re-search/testing/files/BBB05.ps.gz
  7. 7.
    Frantzen, L., Tretmans, J., Willemse, T.A.C.: Test generation based on symbolic specifications. In: Grabowski, J., Nielsen, B. (eds.) FATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3395, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heerink, L.: Ins and outs in refusal testing. In: PhD thesis (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hennessy, M.: Algebraic theory of processes. In: Foundations of Computing. Series. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO8807. A formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour. Int. Organization for Standardization (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krichen, M., Tripakis, S.: Black-box conformance testing for real-time systems. In: Graf, S., Mounier, L. (eds.) SPIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2989, pp. 109–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langerak, R.: A testing theory for lotos using deadlock detection. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 6.1 Ninth int. Symp. on Protocol Spec., Testing, and Verification, pp. 87–98. IFIP (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsen, K., Mikucionis, M., Nielsen, B.: Real-time system testing on-the-fly. In: Sere, K., Walden, M., Karlsson, A. (eds.) The 15th Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory (NWPT), Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland (October 2003) (Extended abstract)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Larsen, K., Mikucionis, M., Nielsen, B.: Online testing of real-time system using uppaal. In: Formal Approaches to Software Testing, Linz, Austria (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, Z., Wu, J., Yin, X.: Testing multi input/output transition system with all-observer. In: TestCom, pp. 95–111 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Nicola, R.: Extensional equivalences for transition systems. Acta Informatica 24, 211–237 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.C.B.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34, 83–133 (1984)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Springintveld, J., Vaandrager, F., D’Argenio, P.: Testing timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science 254(1-2), 225–257 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tretmans, J.: Test generation with inputs, outputs and repetitive quiescence. In: Software-Concepts and Tools, 17(3), pp. 103–120. Also: Technical Report N0. 96-26, Center for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Brandán Briones
    • 1
  • Ed Brinksma
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations