Component-aware Input-Output Conformance
Black-box conformance testing based on a compositional model of the intended behaviour is a very attractive approach to validate the correctness of an implementation. In this context, input-output conformance is a scientifically well-established formalisation of the testing process. This paper discusses peculiar problems arising in situations where the implementation is a monolithic black box, for instance for reasons of intellectual property restrictions, while the specification is compositional. In essence, tests need to be enabled to observe progress in individual specification-level components. For that, we will reconsider input-output conformance so that it can faithfully deal with such situations. Refined notions of quiescence play a central role in a proper treatment of the problem. We focus on the scenario of parallel components with fully asynchronous communication covering very many notorious practical examples. We finally illustrate the practical implications of component-aware conformance testing in the context of a prominent example, namely networked embedded software.
KeywordsModel-based testing Input-output conformance Compositionality
This work has received financial support by the ERC Advanced Investigators Grant 695614 (POWVER) and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) grant 389792660 as part of TRR 248, see https://perspicuous-computing.science.
- 1.Benes, N., Daca, P., Henzinger, T.A., Kretínský, J., Nickovic, D.: Complete composition operators for IOCO-testing theory. In: Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering, CBSE 2015, Montreal, QC, Canada, 4–8 May 2015, pp. 101–110 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2737166.2737175
- 4.CAN in Automation International Users and Manufacturers Group e.V.: CiA 301 CANopen Application Layer and Comm. Profile, v. 4.2.0, February 2011Google Scholar
- 5.CAN in Automation International Users and Manufacturers Group e.V., EnergyBus e.V.: CiA 454 Draft Standard Proposal Application profile for energy management systems - doc. series 1–14, v. 2.0.0, June 2014Google Scholar
- 7.Daca, P., Henzinger, T.A., Krenn, W., Nickovic, D.: Compositional specifications for IOCO testing. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 31 March–4 April 2014, pp. 373–382. IEEE Computer Society (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2014.50
- 13.Graf-Brill, A., Hartmanns, A., Hermanns, H., Rose, S.: Modelling and certification for electric mobility. In: 15th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, INDIN 2017, Emden, Germany, 24–26 July 2017, pp. 109–114. IEEE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2017.8104755
- 16.Heerink, L.: Ins and Outs in refusal testing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands (1998)Google Scholar
- 18.Janssen, R., Tretmans, J.: Matching implementations to specifications: the corner cases of IOCO. In: ACM/SIGAPP Symp. on Applied Computing - Software Verification and Testing Track, pp. 2196–2205. ACM, USA (2019). https://sumbat.cs.ru.nl/Publications
- 19.Langerak, R.: A testing theory for LOTOS using Deadlock detection. In: Brinksma, E., Scollo, G., Vissers, C.A. (eds.) Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification IX, Proceedings of the IFIP WG6.1 Ninth International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Enschede, The Netherlands, 6–9 June, 1989, pp. 87–98. North-Holland (1989)Google Scholar