Testing Functional Requirements in UML Activity Diagrams

  • Stefan Mijatov
  • Tanja Mayerhofer
  • Philip Langer
  • Gerti Kappel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9154)

Abstract

In model driven engineering (MDE), models constitute the main artifacts of the software development process. From models defining structural and behavioral aspects of a software system implementation artifacts, such as source code, are automatically generated using model transformation techniques. However, a crucial issue in MDE is the quality of models, as any defect not captured at model level is transferred to the code level, where it requires more time and effort to be detected and corrected. This work is concerned with testing the functional correctness of models created with a subset of UML called fUML comprising class and activity diagrams. We present a testing framework for fUML, which enables modelers to verify the correct behavior of fUML activities.

Keywords

Functional testing UML activity diagrams fUML 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelhalim, I., Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: An Integrated Framework for Checking the Behaviour of fUML Models using CSP. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15(4), 375–396 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. Software and Systems Modeling 4(2), 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bill, R., Gabmeyer, S., Kaufmann, P., Seidl, M.: OCL meets CTL: Towards CTL-Extended OCL model checking. In: Proc. of 14th Int. Workshop on OCL, OCL 2013. CEUR WS, vol. 1092, pp. 13–22. CEUR-WS.org. (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Craciun, F., Motogna, S., Lazar, I.: Towards better testing of fUML models. In: Proc. of 6th Int. Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2013, pp. 485–486. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crane, M.L., Dingel, J.: Towards a UML virtual machine: implementing an interpreter for UML 2 actions and activities. In: Proc. of 2008 Conf. of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON 2008, pp. 8:96–8:110. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Tool Support for Verifying UML Activity Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(7), 437–447 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidenreich, F., Johannes, J., Karol, S., Seifert, M., Thiele, M., Wende, C., Wilke, C.: Integrating OCL and textual modelling languages. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 349–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laurent, Y., Bendraou, R., Baarir, S., Gervais, M.-P.: Formalization of fUML: an application to process verification. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 347–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayerhofer, T., Langer, P., Kappel, G.: A runtime model for fUML. In: Proc. of 7th Workshop on Models@run.time, MRT 2012, pp. 53–58. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mellor, S.J., Balcer, M.: Executable UML: A Foundation for Model-Driven Architectures. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Micskei, Z., Konnerth, R., Horváth, B., Semeráth, O., Vörös, A., Varró, D.: On open source tools for behavioral modeling and analysis with fUML and Alf. In: Proc. of 1st Workshop on Open Source Software for Model Driven Engineering, OSS4MDE 2014. CEUR WS, vol. 1290, pp. 31–41. CEUR-WS.org. (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mijatov, S., Langer, P., Mayerhofer, T., Kappel, G.: A framework for testing UML activities based on fUML. In: Proc. of 10th Int. Workshop on Model Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation, MoDeVVa 2013. CEUR WS, vol. 1069, pp. 1–10. CEUR-WS.org. (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    OMG: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.4.1 (August 2011). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1
  15. 15.
    OMG: OMG Object Constraint Language (OCL), Version 2.3.1 (January 2012). http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.3.1
  16. 16.
    OMG: Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (fUML), Version 1.1 (August 2013). http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.1
  17. 17.
    Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Lightweight verification of executable models. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 467–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romero, A., Schneider, K., Gonçalves Vieira Ferreira, M.: Using the base semantics given by fUML for verification. In: Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, MODELSWARD 2014, pp. 5–16. SCITEPRESS Digital Library (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Mijatov
    • 1
  • Tanja Mayerhofer
    • 1
  • Philip Langer
    • 1
  • Gerti Kappel
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations