Model-Based Testing for Asynchronous Systems

  • Alexander Graf-BrillEmail author
  • Holger Hermanns
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10471)


Model-based testing is a prominent validation technique, integrating well with other formal approaches to verification, such as model checking. Automated test derivation and execution approaches often struggle with asynchrony in communication between the implementation under test (IUT) and tester, a phenomenon present in most networked systems. Earlier attacks on this problem came with different restrictions on the specification model side. This paper presents a new and effective approach to model-based testing under asynchrony. By waiving the need to guess the possible output state of the IUT, we reduce the computational effort of the test generation algorithm while preserving soundness and conceptual completeness of the testing procedures. In addition, no restrictions on the specification model need to be imposed. We define a suitable conformance relation and we report on empirical results obtained from an industrial case study from the domain of electric mobility.



This work is supported by the ERC Advanced Grant powver (695614) and the Sino-German project CAP (GZ 1023).


  1. 1.
    Balemi, S.: Control of discrete event systems: theory and application. Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernot, G., Gaudel, M.-C., Marre, B.: Software testing based on formal specifications: a theory and a tool. Softw. Eng. J. 6(6), 387–405 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bijl, M., Rensink, A., Tretmans, J.: Action refinement in conformance testing. In: Khendek, F., Dssouli, R. (eds.) TestCom 2005. LNCS, vol. 3502, pp. 81–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11430230_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CAN in Automation International Users and Manufacturers Group e.V.: CiA 301 CANopen Application Layer and Communication Profile, v. 4.2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CAN in Automation International Users and Manufacturers Group e.V.: CiA 305 Layer setting services (LSS) and protocols, v. 3.0.0 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CAN in Automation International Users and Manufacturers Group e.V. and EnergyBus e.V.: CiA 454 Draft Standard Proposal Application profile for energy management systems - doc. series 1-14, v. 2.0.0 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    da Silva Simão, A., Petrenko, A.: From test purposes to asynchronous test cases. In: ICST 2010 Workshops Proceedings, pp. 1–10. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Nicola, R.: Extensional equivalences for transition systems. Acta Inf. 24(2), 211–237 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34, 83–133 (1984)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaudel, M.-C.: Testing can be formal, too. In: Mosses, P.D., Nielsen, M., Schwartzbach, M.I. (eds.) CAAP 1995. LNCS, vol. 915, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi: 10.1007/3-540-59293-8_188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graf-Brill, A., Hermanns, H., Garavel, H.: A model-based certification framework for the EnergyBus standard. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 84–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43613-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hahn, E.M., Hartmanns, A., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.-P.: A compositional modelling and analysis framework for stochastic hybrid systems. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 43(2), 191–232 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartmanns, A., Hermanns, H.: The modest toolset: an integrated environment for quantitative modelling and verification. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 593–598. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hierons, R.M.: The complexity of asynchronous model based testing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 451, 70–82 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hierons, R.M.: Implementation relations for testing through asynchronous channels. Comput. J. 56(11), 1305–1319 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huo, J., Petrenko, A.: On testing partially specified IOTS through lossless queues. In: Groz, R., Hierons, R.M. (eds.) TestCom 2004. LNCS, vol. 2978, pp. 76–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24704-3_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jard, C., Jéron, T.: TGV: theory, principles and algorithms. STTT 7(4), 297–315 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langerak, R.: A testing theory for LOTOS using deadlock detection. In: PSTV 1989, North-Holland, pp. 87–98 (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petrenko, A.: Fault model-driven test derivation from finite state models: annotated bibliography. In: Cassez, F., Jard, C., Rozoy, B., Ryan, M.D. (eds.) MOVEP 2000. LNCS, vol. 2067, pp. 196–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45510-8_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Queued testing of transition systems with inputs and outputs. In: Proceedings of FATES 2002, pp. 79–93 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phillips, I.: Refusal testing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50, 241–284 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tretmans, J.: A formal approach to conformance testing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tretmans, J.: Testing concurrent systems: a formal approach. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S. (eds.) CONCUR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1664, pp. 46–65. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48320-9_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tretmans, J.: Model based testing with labelled transition systems. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) Formal Methods and Testing. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 1–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78917-8_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tretmans, J., Brinksma, E.: TorX: Automated Model Based Testing - Côte de Resyste (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tretmans, J., Verhaard, L.: A queue model relating synchronous and asynchronous communication. In: PSTV 1992, North-Holland, pp. 131–145 (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verhaard, L., Tretmans, J., Kars, P., Brinksma, E.: On asynchronous testing. In: IWPTS 1992, North-Holland, pp. 55–66 (1992)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiglhofer, M., Wotawa, F.: Asynchronous input-output conformance testing. In: COMPSAC 2009, pp. 154–159. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations