Advertisement

DynAlloy as a Formal Method for the Analysis of Java Programs

  • Juan P. Galeotti
  • Marcelo F. Frias
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 227)

Abstract

DynAHoy is an extension of the Alloy specification language that allows one to specify and analyze dynamic properties of models. The analysis is supported by the DynAlloy Analyzer tool. In this paper we present a method for translating sequential Java programs to DynAlloy. This allows one to use DynAlloy as a new formal method for the analysis of Java programs. As an application showing the utility of this formal method toward this task, we present JAT, a tool for automated generation of test data for sequential Java programs, implemented on top of the DynAlloy Analyzer.

Keywords

Java Program Atomic Action Symbolic Execution Test Case Generator Java Code 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ball, T, A Theory of Predicate-Complete Test Coverage and Generation. Technical Report MSR-TR-2004-28, Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, April 20004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkstra E. W. and Scholten C. S., Predicate calculus and program semantics, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frias, M. F., Galeotti, J. P., Lopez Pombo, C. G., and Aguirre, N. M. DynAlloy: Upgrading Alloy with actions. In Proceedings of the 27th. International Conference on Software Engineering, G-C. Roman, Ed. Association for the Computer Machinery and IEEE Computer Society, ACM Press, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 2005, 442–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frias M.F., Lopez Pombo C.G., Baum G.A., Aguirre N.M. and Maibaum T.S.E., Reasoning About Static and Dynamic Properties in Alloy: A Purely Relational Approach, in ACM-Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 14(4), 478–526, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Godefroid P., Klarlund N. and Sen K., DART: Directed Automated Random Testing, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2005 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation (PLDI), 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, E. and Novikov, Y. BerkMin: A fast and robust sat-solver. In Proceedings of the conference on Design, automation and test in Europe, C. D. Kloos and J. da Franca, Eds. IEEE Computer Society, Paris, France, 142–149, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotlieb A., Denmat T. and Botella B., Constraint-Based Test Data Generation in the Presence of Stack-Directed Pointers, in Proceedings of ASE’05, Long Beach, CA, USA, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel D., Kozen D. and Tiuryn J., Dynamic Logic, MIT Press, October 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, D. Alloy: a lightweight object modeling notation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11,2, 2002, 256–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson D., Schechter I. and Shlyakhter I., Alcoa: the Alloy Constraint Analyzer, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson D. and Vaziri, M., Finding Bugs with a Constraint Solver, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), August 21–24, 2000, Portland, OR, USA. ACM, 2000, pp. 14–25.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    JUnit: http://www.junit.org.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khurshid S. and Marinov D., TestEra: Specification-Based Testing of Java Programs Using SAT., Automated Software Engineering 11(4): 403–434 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gary T. Leavens, Albert L. Baker, and Clyde Ruby, Preliminary Design of JML: A Behavioral Interface Specification Language for Java. TR 98-06-rev27, Iowa State University, Department of Computer Science, April 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moskewicz, M. W., Madigan, C. F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., and Malik, S. Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the 38th conference on Design automation, J. Rabaey, Ed. ACM Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States, 2001, 530–535.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sen K., Marinov D. and Agha G., CUTE: A Concolic Unit Testing Engine for C, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Visser W., Pasareanu C., Khurshid S., Test Input Generation with Java PathFinder, in Proceedings of the ACM/SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2004, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July 11–14, 2004. ACM 2004, pp. 97–107.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xie T., Marinov D., Schulte D. and Notkin D., Symtra: A Framework for Generating Object-Oriented Unit Tests Using Symbolic Execution, in Proceedings of TACAS 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan P. Galeotti
    • 1
  • Marcelo F. Frias
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science School of Exact and Natural SciencesUniversity of Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations