Executable Interface Specifications for Testing Asynchronous Creol Components

  • Immo Grabe
  • Marcel Kyas
  • Martin Steffen
  • Arild B. Torjusen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5961)

Abstract

We propose and explore a formal approach for black-box testing asynchronously communicating components in open environments. Asynchronicity poses a challenge for validating and testing components. We use Creol, a high-level, object-oriented language for distributed systems and present an interface specification language to specify components in terms of traces of observable behavior.

The language enables a concise description of a component’s behavior, it is executable in rewriting logic and we use it to give test specifications for Creol components. In a specification, a clean separation between interaction under control of the component or coming from the environment is central, which leads to an assumption-commitment style description of a component’s behavior. The assumptions schedule the inputs, whereas the outputs as commitments are tested for conformance with the specification. The asynchronous nature of communication in Creol is respected by testing only up-to a notion of observability. The existing Creol interpreter is combined with our implementation of the specification language to obtain a specification-driven interpreter for testing.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Yu, I.C.: Creol: A type-safe object-oriented model for distributed concurrent systems. Theoretical Computer Science 365(1-2), 23–66 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Roever, W.P., de Boer, F.S., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Proof Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Creol language, http://heim.ifi.uio.no/creol
  4. 4.
    Abadi, M., Cardelli, L.: A Theory of Objects. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes, part I/II. Information and Computation 100, 1–77 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grabe, I., Kyas, M., Steffen, M., Torjusen, A.B.: Executable interface specifications for testing asynchronous Creol components. Technical Report 375, University of Oslo, Dept. of Computer Science (July 2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steffen, M.: Object-Connectivity and Observability for Class-Based, Object-Oriented Languages. Habilitation thesis, Technische Faktultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (July 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeffrey, A., Rathke, J.: A fully abstract may testing semantics for concurrent objects. In: 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 101–112. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting as a unified model of concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science 96, 73–155 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: The Maude 2.0 system. In Nieuwenhuis, R., ed.: RTA 2003. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) RTA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2706, pp. 76–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Myers, G.J.: The Art of Software-Testing. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patton, R.: Software Testing, 2nd edn. SAMS (July 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaudel, M.C.: Testing can be formal, too. In: Mosses, P.D., Schwartzbach, M.I., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CAAP 1995, FASE 1995, and TAPSOFT 1995. LNCS, vol. 915, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Binder, R.V.: Testing Object-Oriented Systems, Models, Patterns, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bertolino, A.: Software testing research: Achievements, challenges, dreams. In: FOSE 2007: Future of Software Engineering, pp. 85–103. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, H.Y., Tse, T.H., Chan, F.T., Chen, T.Y.: In black and white: An integrated approach to class-level testing of object-oriented program. ACM Transactions of Software Engineering and Methodology 7(3), 250–295 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernot, G., Gaudel, M.C., Marre, B.: Software testing based on formal specifications. IEEE Software Engineering Journal 6(6), 387–405 (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doong, R.K., Frankl, P.G.: The ASTOOT approach to testing object-oriented programs. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 3(2), 101–130 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doong, R.K., Frankl, P.G.: Case studies on testing object-oriented programs. In: TAV4: Proceedings of the symposium on Testing, analysis, and verification, pp. 165–177. ACM Press, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frankl, P.G., Doong, R.K.: Tools for testing object-oriented programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Northwest Conference on Software Quality, pp. 309–324 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen, H.Y., Sun, Y.X., Tse, T.H.: A strategy for selecting synchronization sequences to test concurrent object-oriented software. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Computer Software and Application Conference (COMPSAC 2003). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Long, B.: Testing Concurrent Java Components. PhD thesis, University of Queensland (July 2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brinch Hansen, P.: Reproducible testing of monitors. Software – Practice and Experience 8, 223–245 (1978)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacky, J., Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Schulte, W.: Model-Based Software Testing and Analysis with C#. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Torjusen, A.B.: Validating behavioral component interfaces in rewriting logic. Fundamenta Informaticae 82(4), 341–359 (2008)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlatte, R., Aichernig, B., de Boer, F., Griesmayer, A., Johnsen, E.B.: Testing concurrent objects with application-specific schedulers. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Immo Grabe
    • 1
  • Marcel Kyas
    • 2
  • Martin Steffen
    • 3
  • Arild B. Torjusen
    • 3
  1. 1.Christian-Albrechts University KielGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceFreie Universität BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations