Advertisement

Complete Model-Based Equivalence Class Testing for the ETCS Ceiling Speed Monitor

  • Cécile Braunstein
  • Anne E. Haxthausen
  • Wen-ling Huang
  • Felix Hübner
  • Jan Peleska
  • Uwe Schulze
  • Linh Vu Hong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8829)

Abstract

In this paper we present a new test model written in SysML and an associated blackbox test suite for the Ceiling Speed Monitor (CSM) of the European Train Control System (ETCS). The model is publicly available and intended to serve as a novel benchmark for investigating new testing theories and comparing the capabilities of model-based test automation tools. The CSM application inputs velocity values from a domain which could not be completely enumerated for test purposes with reasonable effort. We therefore apply a novel method for equivalence class testing that – despite the conceptually infinite cardinality of the input domains – is capable to produce finite test suites that are complete (i.e. sound and exhaustive) for a given fault model. In this paper, an overview of the model and the equivalence class testing strategy is given, and tool-based evaluation results are presented. For the technical details we refer to the published model and a technical report that is also available on the same website.

Keywords

Model-based testing Equivalence class partition testing SysML European Train Control System ETCS Ceiling Speed Monitoring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Braunstein, C., Huang, W.-L., Peleska, J., Schulze, U., Hübner, F., Haxthausen, A.E., vu Hong, L.: A SysML test model and test suite for the ETCS ceiling speed monitor. Technical report, Embedded Systems Testing Benchmarks Site (April 30, 2014), http://www.mbt-benchmarks.org
  2. 2.
    Chow, T.S.: Testing software design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-4(3), 178–186 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Railway Agency. ERTMS – System Requirements Specification – UNISIG SUBSET-026 (February 2012), http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Set-2-System-Requirements-Specification.aspx
  5. 5.
    Gaudel, M.-C.: Testing can be formal, too. In: Mosses, P.D., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CAAP 1995, FASE 1995, and TAPSOFT 1995. LNCS, vol. 915, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grieskamp, W., Gurevich, Y., Schulte, W., Veanes, M.: Generating finite state machines from abstract state machines. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 27(4), 112–122 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, W.-l., Peleska, J.: Exhaustive model-based equivalence class testing. In: Yenigün, H., Yilmaz, C., Ulrich, A. (eds.) ICTSS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8254, pp. 49–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W.-l. Huang, J., Peleska, U.: Schulze. Test automation support. Technical Report D34.1, COMPASS Comprehensive Modelling for Advanced Systems of Systems (2013), http://www.compass-research.eu/deliverables.html
  9. 9.
    De Nicola, G., di Tommaso, P., Rosaria, E., Francesco, F., Pietro, M., Antonio, O.: A Grey-Box Approach to the Functional Testing of Complex Automatic Train Protection Systems. In: Dal Cin, M., Kaâniche, M., Pataricza, A. (eds.) EDCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3463, pp. 305–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group. OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysMLTM). Technical report, Object Management Group, OMG Document Number: formal/2010-06-02 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peleska, J.: Industrial-strength model-based testing - state of the art and current challenges. In: Petrenko, A.K., Schlingloff, H. (eds.) Proceedings Eighth Workshop on Model-Based Testing, Rome, Italy, March 17. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 111, pp. 3–28. Open Publishing Association (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peleska, J., Honisch, A., Lapschies, F., Löding, H., Schmid, H., Smuda, P., Vorobev, E., Zahlten, C.: A real-world benchmark model for testing concurrent real-time systems in the automotive domain. In: Wolff, B., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICTSS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7019, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N., van Bochmann, G.: Fault Models for Testing in Context, pp. 163–177. Chapman & Hall (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spillner, A., Linz, T., Schaefer, H.: Software Testing Foundations. dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.N.I.S.I.G.: ERTMS/ETCS SystemRequirements Specification, Chapter 3, Principles, volume Subset-026-3, Issue 3.3.0 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vasilevskii, M.P.: Failure diagnosis of automata. Kibernetika (Transl.) 4, 98–108 (1973)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cécile Braunstein
    • 1
  • Anne E. Haxthausen
    • 3
  • Wen-ling Huang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Felix Hübner
    • 1
  • Jan Peleska
    • 1
  • Uwe Schulze
    • 1
  • Linh Vu Hong
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenGermany
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of HamburgGermany
  3. 3.DTU ComputeTechnical University of DenmarkDenmark

Personalised recommendations