Online Testing of LTL Properties for Java Code

  • Paolo Arcaini
  • Angelo Gargantini
  • Elvinia Riccobene
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8244)

Abstract

LTL specifications are commonly used in runtime verification to describe the requirements about the system behavior. Efficient techniques derive, from LTL specifications, monitors that can check if system executions respect these properties. In this paper we present an online testing approach which is based on LTL properties of Java programs. We present an algorithm able to derive and execute test cases from monitors for LTL specifications. Our technique actively tests a Java class, avoids false failures, and it is able to check the correctness of the outputs also in the presence of nondeterminism. We devise several coverage criteria and strategies for visiting the monitors, providing different qualities in terms of test size, testing time, and fault detection capability.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Yannakakis, M.: Distinguishing tests for nondeterministic and probabilistic machines. In: Proc. of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1995, pp. 363–372. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arcaini, P., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E.: CoMA: Conformance Monitoring of Java Programs by Abstract State Machines. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artho, C., Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Khurshid, S., Lowry, M., Pasareanu, C., Roşu, G., Sen, K., Visser, W., Washington, R.: Combining test case generation and runtime verification. Theoretical Computer Science 336(2-3), 209–234 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Transactions on Software and Methodology (TOSEM) 20 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, F., Roşu, G.: Java-MOP: A monitoring oriented programming environment for Java. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 546–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    d’Amorim, M., Ros̨u, G.: Efficient monitoring of ω-languages. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duret-Lutz, A., Poitrenaud, D.: SPOT: An extensible model checking library using transition-based generalized Büchi automata. In: MASCOTS 2004, pp. 76–83 (October 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dwyer, M., Avrunin, G., Corbett, J.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proc. of ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420 (May 1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraser, G., Arcuri, A.: Evosuite: Automatic test suite generation for object-oriented software. In: Proc. of ACM SIGSOFT ESEC/FSE, pp. 416–419 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fraser, G., Wotawa, F.: Nondeterministic testing with linear model-checker counterexamples. In: Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Quality Software, QSIC 2007, pp. 107–116. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallegos, A., Ochoa, O., Gates, A., Roach, S., Salamah, S., Vela, C.: A property specification tool for generating formal specifications: Prospec 2.0. In: Proceedings of SEKE, Los Angeles, CA (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gross, F., Fraser, G., Zeller, A.: Search-based system testing: high coverage, no false alarms. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2012, pp. 67–77. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kähkönen, K., Lampinen, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: The LIME interface specification language and runtime monitoring tool. In: Bensalem, S., Peled, D.A. (eds.) RV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5779, pp. 93–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design 19(3), 291–314 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyer, B.: Applying “Design by Contract”. IEEE Computer 25(10), 40 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nobakht, B., Bonsangue, M.M., de Boer, F.S., de Gouw, S.: Monitoring method call sequences using annotations. In: Barbosa, L.S., Lumpe, M. (eds.) FACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6921, pp. 53–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pacheco, C., Ernst, M.D.: Randoop: feedback-directed random testing for Java. In: OOPSLA 2007 Companion, pp. 815–816. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pecheur, C., Raimondi, F., Brat, G.: A formal analysis of requirements-based testing. In: Proc. of ISSTA 2009, pp. 47–56. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of FOCS 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steven, J., Chandra, P., Fleck, B., Podgurski, A.: jRapture: A capture/replay tool for observation-based testing. In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2000, pp. 158–167. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stolz, V., Bodden, E.: Temporal assertions using AspectJ. In: 5th Workshop on Runtime Verification. ENTCS, vol. 144, pp. 109–124. Elsevier (July 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tabakov, D., Vardi, M.Y.: Optimized temporal monitors for systemC. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 436–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tan, L.: State coverage metrics for specification-based testing with Büchi automata. In: Gogolla, M., Wolff, B. (eds.) TAP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6706, pp. 171–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan, L., Sokolsky, O., Lee, I.: Specification-based testing with linear temporal logic. In: Proc. of Information Reuse and Integration, pp. 493–498. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tong, J., Boulé, M., Zilic, Z.: Defining and providing coverage for assertion-based dynamic verification. Journal of Electronic Testing 26(2), 211–225 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tretmans, J.: Model based testing with labelled transition systems. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) FORTEST. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 1–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N.: Online testing with model programs. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 273–282. ACM (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Arcaini
    • 1
  • Angelo Gargantini
    • 2
  • Elvinia Riccobene
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di IngegneriaUniversità di BergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations