Verifiable Coverage Criteria for Automated Testing

  • Sergey Baranov
  • Vsevolod Kotlyarov
  • Thomas Weigert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7083)


A key question for system testing of a software product is how to determine that the semantics of its requirements is adequately realized in the given implementation, or alternatively to find a series of concrete counter-examples demonstrating the violation of (a) particular requirement(s). An adequate test suite will aid in this determination. This paper formulates three types of requirements coverage criteria to establish the adequacy of a test suite. The suggested approach to system testing was validated in a number of medium and large size industrial projects.


Requirements verification requirement coverage integration testing and verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beizer, B.: Software Testing Techniques. ITP (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Humphry, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baranov, S.N., Drobintsev, P.D., Kotlyarov, V.P., Letichevsky, A.A.: The Technology of Automated Verification and Testing in Industrial Projects. In: Proc. IEEE Russia Northwest Section, 110 Anniversary of Radio Invention Conference, pp. 81–90. IEEE Press, St.Petersburg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baranov, S., Kotlyarov, V., Letichevsky, A.: An Industrial Technology of Test Automation Based on Verified Behavioral Models of Requirement Specifications for Telecommunication Applications. In: Proc. Region 8 Eurocon 2009 Conference, pp. 122–129. IEEE Press, St.Petersburg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baranov, S., Kapitonova, J., Letichevsky, A., Volkov, V., Weigert, T.: Basic Protocols, Message Sequence Charts, and Verification of Requirements Specifications. Computer Networks 49(5), 661–675 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Recommendation ITU-T Z.151 User requirements notation (URN) – Language Definition (2008) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Letichevsky, A.A., Kapitonova, J.V., Kotlyarov, V.P., Letichevsky, O.O., Volkov, V.V., Baranov, S.N., Weigert, T.: Basic Protocols, Message Sequence Charts, and the Verification of Requirements Specifications. In: Proc of ISSRE 2004 Workshop on Integrated Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2004:WITUL), IRISA, Rennes France (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Nogueira, S., Sampaio, A., Mota, A.M.: Guided Test Generation from CSP Models. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 258–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potiyenko, S.V.: Methods of Direct and Reverse System Symbolic Modeling with Basic Protocols. Problems of Programming 4, 39–44 (2008) (in Russian)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amyot, D., Weiss, M., Logrippo, L.: Generation of Test Purposes from Use Case Maps. Computer Networks 49(5), 643–660 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassine, J., Rilling, J., Dssouli, R.: Use Case Maps as a property specification language. Software and Systems Modeling 8(2), 205–220 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergey Baranov
    • 1
  • Vsevolod Kotlyarov
    • 2
  • Thomas Weigert
    • 3
  1. 1.St. Petersburg Inst. for Informatics and Automation of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt.PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Saint-Petersburg State Polytechnic UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer ScienceMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations