Towards Scenario-Based Testing of UML Diagrams

  • Petra Brosch
  • Uwe Egly
  • Sebastian Gabmeyer
  • Gerti Kappel
  • Martina Seidl
  • Hans Tompits
  • Magdalena Widl
  • Manuel Wimmer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7305)

Abstract

In model-driven engineering, models are not primarily developed for documentation and requirement specification purposes, but promoted to first-class artifacts, from which executable code is generated. As a consequence, typical development activities like testing must be performed on the model level. In this paper, we propose to use overlapping information inherent in multiple views of models for automatic testing. Using a prototype based on the model checker Spin we show the feasibility of this approach and identify future challenges.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Steffen, M., Ábrahám, E.: A Fully Abstract Semantics for UML Components. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3657, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broy, M., Cengarle, M.: UML Formal Semantics: Lessons Learned. SoSyM 10(4) (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rivera, J., Romero, J., Vallecillo, A.: Behavior, Time and Viewpoint Consistency: Three Challenges for MDE. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 60–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cimatti, A., Mover, S., Tonetta, S.: Proving and Explaining the Unfeasibility of Message Sequence Charts for Hybrid Systems. In: FMCAD (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language (UML), Superstructure V2.4.1 (August 2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
  7. 7.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The Model Checker SPIN. TSE 23(5), 279–295 (1997)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, X., Hu, J., Bu, L., Zhao, J., Zheng, G.: Consistency Checking of Concurrent Models for Scenario-Based Specifications. In: Prinz, A., Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3530, pp. 298–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pelliccione, P., Inverardi, P., Muccini, H.: CHARMY: A Framework for Designing and Verifying Architectural Specifications. TSE 35(3), 325–346 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schäfer, T., Knapp, A., Merz, S.: Model Checking UML State Machines and Collaborations. ENTCS 55(3), 357–369 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Synthesis of Behavioral Models from Scenarios. TSE 29(2), 99–115 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B.: From UML 2 Sequence Diagrams to State Machines by Graph Transformation. JOT 10(8), 1–22 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whittle, J., Schumann, J.: Generating Statechart Designs from Scenarios. In: ICSE, pp. 314–323. ACM (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Brosch
    • 2
  • Uwe Egly
    • 1
  • Sebastian Gabmeyer
    • 2
  • Gerti Kappel
    • 2
  • Martina Seidl
    • 3
  • Hans Tompits
    • 1
  • Magdalena Widl
    • 1
  • Manuel Wimmer
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyAustria
  2. 2.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria
  3. 3.Institute of Formal Models and VerificationJohannes Kepler UniversityAustria

Personalised recommendations