Deriving Input Partitions from UML Models for Automatic Test Generation

  • Stephan Weißleder
  • Bernd-Holger Schlingloff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5002)


In this paper, we deal with model-based automatic test generation. We show how to use UML state machines, UML class diagrams, and OCL expressions to automatically derive partitions of input parameter value ranges for boundary testing. We present a test generation algorithm and describe an implementation of this algorithm. Finally, we discuss our approach and compare it to commercial tools.


State Machine Class Diagram Object Constraint Language Coverage Criterion System Under Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beizer, B.: Software Testing Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Binder, R.V.: Testing object-oriented systems: models, patterns, and tools. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourhfir, C., Dssouli, R., Aboulhamid, E., Rico, N.: Automatic executable test case generation for extended finite state machine protocols. In: IWTCS 1997, pp. 75–90 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng, K.T., Krishnakumar, A.S.: Automatic functional test generation using the extended finite state machine model. In: DAC 1993, pp. 86–91. ACM Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dai, Z.R., Deussen, P.H., Busch, M., Lacmene, L.P., Ngwangwen, T., Herrmann, J., Schmidt, M.: Automatic Test Data Generation for TTCN-3 using CTE. In: ICSSEA (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group. Object Constraint Language (OCL), version 2.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 2.1 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamie, A., Civello, F., Howse, J., Kent, S.J.H., Mitchell, R.: Reflections on the object constraint language. In: Bézivin, J., Muller, P.-A. (eds.) UML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 162–172. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hierons, R., Harman, M., Fox, C., Ouarbya, L., Daoudi, M.: Conditioned slicing supports partition testing. In: Software Testing, Verification and Reliability (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reactive Systems Inc. Reactis,
  11. 11.
    Kansomkeat, S., Rivepiboon, W.: Automated-generating test case using UML statechart diagrams. In: SAICSIT 2003, pp. 296–300 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kosmatov, N., Legeard, B., Peureux, F., Utting, M.: Boundary coverage criteria for test generation from formal models. In: ISSRE 2004, pp. 139–150. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Legeard, B., Peureux, F., Utting, M.: Automated Boundary Testing from Z and B. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 21–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leirios: LTG/UML,
  15. 15.
    Liskov, B.: Keynote address - data abstraction and hierarchy. In: SIGPLAN, pp. 17–34 (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Offutt, J., Abdurazik, A.: Generating tests from UML specifications. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 416–429. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richters, M., Gogolla, M.: On formalizing the UML object constraint language OCL. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 449–464. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weißleder, S.: ParTeG (Partition Test Generator),
  19. 19.
    Samuel, P., Mall, R.: Boundary Value Testing based on UML Models. In: ATS 2005, pp. 94–99. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sokenou, D.: Generating Test Sequences from UML Sequence Diagrams and State Diagrams. In: INFORMATIK 2006, pp. 236–240 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Telcordia Technologies. AETG,
  22. 22.
    Telelogic. Rhapsody Automated Test Generation,
  23. 23.
    Le Traon, Y.: Design by contract to improve software vigilance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 32(8), 571–586 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    VerifySoft Technology. Conformiq Test Generator,
  26. 26.
    Ziemann, P., Gogolla, M.: Validating OCL specifications with the USE tool — an example based on the BART case study. In: FMICS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Weißleder
    • 1
  • Bernd-Holger Schlingloff
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations