Advertisement

Testing Transition Systems: An Annotated Bibliography

  • Ed Brinksma
  • Jan Tretmans
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2067)

Abstract

Labelled transition system based test theory has made remarkable progress over the past 15 years. From a theoretically interesting approach to the semantics of reactive systems it has developed into a field where testing theory is (slowly) narrowing the gap with testing practice. In particular, new test generation algorithms are being designed that can be used in realistic situations whilst maintaining a sound theoretical basis. In this paper we present an annotated bibliography of labelled transition system based test theory and its applications covering the main developments.

Keywords

Transition System Test Suite Test Generation System Under Test Annotate Bibliography 
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. [Abr87]
    S. Abramsky. Observational equivalence as a testing equivalence. Theoretical Computer Science, 53(3):225–241, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [Ald90]
    R. Alderden. COOPER, the compositional construction of a canonical tester. In S.T. Vuong, editor, FORTE’89, pages 13–17. North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [BAL+90]
    E. Brinksma, R. Alderden, R. Langerak, J. van de Lagemaat, and J. Tretmans. A formal approach to conformance testing. In J. de Meer, L. Mackert, and W. Effelsberg, editors, Second Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, pages 349–363. North-Holland, 1990. Also: Memorandum INF-89-45, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. [BB87]
    T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma. Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14:25–59, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Ber91]
    G. Bernot. Testing against formal specifications: A theoretical view. In S. Abramsky and T. S. E. Maibaum, editors, TAPSOFT’91, Volume 2, pages 99–119. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 494, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [BFV+99]
    A. Belinfante, J. Feenstra, R.G. de Vries, J. Tretmans, N. Goga, L. Feijs, S. Mauw, and L. Heerink. Formal test automation: A simple experiment. In G. Csopaki, S. Dibuz, and K. Tarnay, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 12, pages 179–196. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [BHT97]
    E. Brinksma, L. Heerink, and J. Tretmans. Developments in testing transition systems. In M. Kim, S. Kang, and K. Hong, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 10, pages 143–166. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [BK85]
    J.A. Bergstra and J.W. Klop. Algebra of communicating processes with abstraction. Theoretical Computer Science, 37(1):77–121, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [Bri87]
    E. Brinksma. On the existence of canonical testers. Memorandum INF-87-5, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [Bri88]
    E. Brinksma. A theory for the derivation of tests. In S. Aggarwal and K. Sabnani, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VIII, pages 63–74. North-Holland, 1988. Also: Memorandum INF-88-19, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. [Bri93]
    E. Brinksma. On the coverage of partial validations. In M. Nivat, C.M.I. Rattray, T. Rus, and G. Scollo, editors, AMAST’93, pages 247–254. BCSFACS Workshops in Computing Series, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [CFP94]
    A.R. Cavalli, J.P. Favreau, and M. Phalippou. Formal methods in conformance testing: Results and perspectives. In O. Rafiq, editor, Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems VI, number C-19 in IFIP Transactions, pages 3–17. North-Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [CG97]
    O. Charles and R. Groz. Basing Test Coverage on a Formalization of Test Hypotheses. In M. Kim, S. Kang, and K. Hong, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 10, pages 109–124. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. [CGPT96]
    M. Clatin, R. Groz, M. Phalippou, and R. Thummel. Two approaches linking test generation with verification techniques. In A. Cavalli and S. Budkowski, editors, Eight Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems. Chapman & Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [CV97]
    J.A. Curgus and S.T. Vuong. Sensitivity analysis of the metric based test selection. In M. Kim, S. Kang, and K. Hong, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 10, pages 200–219. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. [DAV93]
    K. Drira, P. Azéma, and F. Vernadat. Refusal graphs for conformance tester generation and simplification: A computational framework. In A. Danthine, G. Leduc, and P. Wolper, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification XIII, number C-16 in IFIP Transactions. North-Holland, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [DBRV+00]
    L. Du Bousquet, S. Ramangalshy, C. Viho, A. Belinfante, and R.G. de Vries. Formal Test Automation: The Conference Protocol with Tgv/TorX. In G. von Bochmann, R. Probert, and H. Ural, editors, Test-Com 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  18. [DN87]
    R. De Nicola. Extensional equivalences for transition systems. Acta Informatica, 24:211–237, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [DNH84]
    R. De Nicola and M.C.B. Hennessy. Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 34:83–133, 1984.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [Doo91]
    P. Doornbosch. Test Derivation for Full LOTOS. Memorandum INF-91-51, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1991. Master’s Thesis.Google Scholar
  21. [Dri92]
    K. Drira. Transformation et Composition de Graphes de Refus: Analyse de la Testabilité. PhD thesis, Laboratoire d’Automatique et d’Analyse des Systemes du CNRS, Toulouse, France, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [Eer87]
    H. Eertink. The implementation of a test derivation algorithm. Memorandum INF-87-36, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [FJJV96]
    J.-C. Fernandez, C. Jard, T. Jéron, and C. Viho. Using on-the-fly verification techniques for the generation of test suites. In R. Alur and T.A. Henzinger, editors, Computer Aided Verification CAV’96. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1102, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. [FJJV97]
    J.-C. Fernandez, C. Jard, T. Jéron, and C. Viho. An experiment in automatic generation of test suites for protocols with verification technology. Science of Computer Programming-Special Issue on COST247, Verification and Validation Methods for Formal Descriptions, 29(1-2):123–146, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. [Gar98]
    H. Garavel. Open/Cæsar: An open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing. In B. Steffen, editor, Fourth Int. Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’98), pages 68–84. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1384, Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [Gau95]
    M.-C. Gaudel. Testing can be formal, too. In P.D. Mosses, M. Nielsen, and M.I. Schwartzbach, editors, TAPSOFT’95: Theory and Practice of Software Development, pages 82–96. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 915, Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. [GJ98]
    M.-C. Gaudel and P.R. James. Testing algebraic data types and processes: A unifying theory. In J.F. Groote, B. Luttik, and J. van Wamel, editors, Third Int. Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS’98), pages 215–230, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998. CWI.Google Scholar
  28. [Gla90]
    R.J. van Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.W. Klop, editors, CONCUR’90, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 458, pages 278–297. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. [Gla93]
    R.J. van Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum II (The semantics of sequential systems with silent moves). In E. Best, editor, CONCUR’ 93, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 715, pages 66–81. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. [GSDD97]
    J. Grabowski, R. Scheurer, Z.R. Dai, and Hogrefe. D. Applying SaMsTaG to the B-ISDN protocol SSCOP. In M. Kim, S. Kang, and K. Hong, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 10, pages 397–415. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. [Hee98]
    L. Heerink. Ins and Outs in Refusal Testing. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. [Hen88]
    M. Hennessy. Algebraic Theory of Processes. Foundations of Computing Series. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  33. [HFT00]
    L. Heerink, J. Feenstra, and J. Tretmans. Formal Test Automation: The Conference Protocol with Phact. In G. von Bochmann, R. Probert, and H. Ural, editors, TestCom 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  34. [Hoa85]
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  35. [Hol91]
    G.J. Holzmann. Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
  36. [HST96]
    D. Hogrefe, Heymer S., and J. Tretmans. Report on the standardization project “Formal Methods in Conformance Testing”. In B. Baumgarten, H.-J. Burkhardt, and A. Giessler, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 9, pages 289–298. Chapman & Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  37. [HT96]
    L. Heerink and J. Tretmans. Formal methods in conformance testing: A probabilistic refinement. In B. Baumgarten, H.-J. Burkhardt, and A. Giessler, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 9, pages 261–276. Chapman & Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  38. [HT97]
    L. Heerink and J. Tretmans. Refusal testing for classes of transition systems with inputs and outputs. In T. Mizuno, N. Shiratori, T. Higashino, and A. Togashi, editors, Formal Desciption Techniques and Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification FORTE X /PSTV XVII’ 97, pages 23–38. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  39. [HT99]
    J. He and K.J. Turner. Protocol-Inspired Hardware Testing. In G. Csopaki, S. Dibuz, and K. Tarnay, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 12, pages 131-147. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
  40. [ISO89]
    ISO. Information Processing Systems, Open Systems Interconnection, LOTOS-A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. International Standard IS-8807. ISO, Geneve, 1989.Google Scholar
  41. [ISO91]
    ISO. Information Technology, Open Systems Interconnection, Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework. International Standard IS-9646. ISO, Geneve, 1991. Also: CCITT X.290–X.294.Google Scholar
  42. [ISO96]
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21 WG7, ITU-T SG 10/Q.8. Information Retrieval, Transfer and Management for OSI; Framework: Formal Methods in Conformance Testing. Committee Draft CD 13245-1, ITU-T proposed recommendation Z.500. ISO-ITU-T, Geneve, 1996.Google Scholar
  43. [JJKV98]
    C. Jard, T. Jéron, H. Kahlouche, and C. Viho. Towards Automatic Distribution of Testers for Distributed Conformance Testing. In S. Budkowski, A. Cavalli, and Najm E., editors, Formal Desciption Techniques and Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification FORTE X /PSTV XVII’ 98, pages 353–368. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. [JJM00]
    C. Jard, T. Jéron, and P. Morel. Verification of Test Suites. In G. von Bochmann, R. Probert, and H. Ural, editors, TestCom 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  45. [JM99]
    T. Jéron and P. Morel. Test generation derived from model-checking. In D. Halbwachs, N. nad Peled, editor, Computer Aided Verification CAV’99, pages 108-121. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1633, Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [KJG99]
    A. Kerbrat, T. Jéron, and R. Groz. Automated Test Generation from SDL Specifications. In R. Dssouli, G. von Bochmann, and Y. Lahav, editors, SDL’99, The Next Millennium-Proceedings of the 9th SDL Forum, pages 135–152. Elsevier Science, 1999.Google Scholar
  47. [KVZ98]
    H. Kahlouche, C. Viho, and M. Zendri. An industrial experiment in automatic generation of executable test suites for a cache coherency protocol. In A. Petrenko and N. Yevtushenko, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 11, pages 211–226. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  48. [Lan90]
    R. Langerak. A testing theory for LOTOS using deadlock detection. In E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and C. A. Vissers, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification IX, pages 87–98. North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  49. [Led92]
    G. Leduc. A framework based on implementation relations for implementing LOTOS specifications. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25(1):23–41, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [LGA96]
    P. Le Gall and A. Arnould. Formal specifications and test: Correctness and oracle. In O.-J. Dahl, O. Owe, and M. Haveraaen, editors, 11th ADT Workshop. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  51. [LT89]
    N.A. Lynch and M.R. Tuttle. An introduction to Input/Output Automata. CWIQuarterly, 2(3):219–246, 1989. Also: Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-373 (TM-351 revised), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1988.Google Scholar
  52. [LY96]
    D. Lee and M. Yannakakis. Principles and methods for testing finite state machines-a survey. The Proceedings of the IEEE, 84, August 1996.Google Scholar
  53. [Mar95]
    B. Marre. LOFT: A tool for assisting selection of test data sets from algebraic specifications. In P.D. Mosses, M. Nielsen, and M.I. Schwartzbach, editors, TAPSOFT’95: Theory and Practice of Software Development, pages 799-800. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 915, Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  54. [Mil89]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  55. [Pet00]
    A. Petrenko. In These Proceedings, 2000.Google Scholar
  56. [PF90]
    D. H. Pitt and D. Freestone. The derivation of conformance tests from LOTOS specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(12):1337–1343, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [Pha94a]
    M. Phalippou. Executable testers. In O. Rafiq, editor, Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems VI, number C-19 in IFIP Transactions, pages 35–50. North-Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  58. [Pha94b]
    M. Phalippou. Relations d’Implantation et Hypothèses de Test sur des Automates à Entrées et Sorties. PhD thesis, L’Université de BordeauxI, France, 1994.Google Scholar
  59. [Phi87]
    I. Phillips. Refusal testing. Theoretical Computer Science, 50(2):241–284, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. [PS97]
    J. Peleska and M. Siegel. Test automation of safety-critical reactive systems. South African Computer Jounal, 19:53–77, 1997.Google Scholar
  61. [Ray87]
    D. Rayner. OSI conformance testing. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14:79–98, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [Ray97]
    D. Rayner. Future directions for protocol testing, learning the lessons from the past. In M. Kim, S. Kang, and K. Hong, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 10, pages 3–17. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  63. [Seg93]
    R. Segala. Quiescence, fairness, testing, and the notion of implementation. In E. Best, editor, CONCUR’93, pages 324–338. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 715, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  64. [SEK+98]
    M. Schmitt, A. Ek, B. Koch, J. Grabowski, and D. Hogrefe.-Autolink-Putting SDL-based Test Generation into Practice. In A. Petrenko and N. Yevtushenko, editors, Int. Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems 11, pages 227–243. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  65. [Spi]
    Spin. On-the-Fly, LTL Model Checking with Spin. URL: http://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/spin/whatispin.html.
  66. [STW96]
    Dutch Technology Foundation STW. Côte de Resyste-COnformance TEsting of REactive SYSTEms. Project proposal STW TIF.4111, University of Twente, Eindhoven University of Technology, Philips Research Laboratories, KPN Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1996. URL: http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/CdR.Google Scholar
  67. [Tan97]
    Q. Tan. On Conformance Testing of Systems Communicating by Rendezvous. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada, 1997.Google Scholar
  68. [TKB92]
    J. Tretmans, P. Kars, and E. Brinksma. Protocol conformance testing: A formal perspective on ISO IS-9646. In J. Kroon, R. J. Heijink, and E. Brinksma, editors, Fourth Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, number C-3 in IFIP Transactions, pages 131–142. North-Holland, 1992. Extended abstract of Memorandum INF-91-32, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 1991.Google Scholar
  69. [TPB96]
    Q.M. Tan, A. Petrenko, and G. von Bochmann. Modeling Basic LOTOS by FSMs for conformance testing. In P. Dembiński and M. Średniawa, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification XV, pages 137–152. IFIP WG6.1, Chapman & Hall, 1996. Also: publication # 958, Université de Montréal, Département d’Informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle.Google Scholar
  70. [Tre90]
    J. Tretmans. Test case derivation from LOTOS specifications. In S.T. Vuong, editor, FORTE’89, pages 345–359. North-Holland, 1990. Also: Memorandum INF-90-21, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  71. [Tre94]
    J. Tretmans. A formal approach to conformance testing. In O. Rafiq, editor, Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems VI, number C-19 in IFIP Transactions, pages 257–276. North-Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  72. [Tre96a]
    J. Tretmans. Conformance testing with labelled transition systems: Implementation relations and test generation. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 29:49–79, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [Tre96b]
    J. Tretmans. Test generation with inputs, outputs and repetitive quiescence. Software-Concepts and Tools, 17(3):103–120, 1996. Also: Technical Report No. 96-26, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  74. [Tre99]
    J. Tretmans. Testing concurrent systems: A formal approach. In J.C.M Baeten and S. Mauw, editors, CONCUR’99-10th Int. Conference on Concurrency Theory, volume 1664 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 46–65. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  75. [TV92]
    J. Tretmans and L. Verhaard. A queue model relating synchronous and asynchronous communication. In R.J. Linn and M.Ü. Uyar, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification XII, number C-8 in IFIP Transactions, pages 131–145. North-Holland, 1992. Extended abstract of Memorandum INF-92-04, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1992, and Internal Report, TFL RR 1992-1, TFL, Hørsholm, Denmark.Google Scholar
  76. [VT98]
    R.G. de Vries and J. Tretmans. On-the-Fly Conformance Testing using Spin. In G. Holzmann, E. Najm, and A. Serhrouchni, editors, Fourth Workshop on Automata Theoretic Verification with the Spin Model Checker, ENST 98 S 002, pages 115–128, Paris, France, November 2, 1998. Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications. Also to appear in Software Tools for Technology Transfer.Google Scholar
  77. [VTKB93]
    L. Verhaard, J. Tretmans, P. Kars, and E. Brinksma. On asynchronous testing. In G. von Bochmann, R. Dssouli, and A. Das, editors, Fifth Int. Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, IFIP Transactions. North-Holland, 1993. Also: Memorandum INF-93-03, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  78. [Wez90]
    C. D. Wezeman. The CO-OP method for compositional derivation of conformance testers. In E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and C. A. Vissers, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification IX, pages 145–158. North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ed Brinksma
    • 1
  • Jan Tretmans
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations