Software Product Lines (SPLs) are a promising approach for efficiently engineering similar variants and/or evolving versions of software products. SPLs propagate systematic reuse of design artifacts between variants based on commonality and variability specifications in terms of features. Adopting reuse principles also to methods for behavioral conformance verification of product variants to their formal specifications, e.g., using model-based testing, is still an open problem. The sound reuse of verification artifacts such as test cases and test results is challenging due to the syntax-oriented and cross-cutting nature of recent feature-oriented SPL modeling approaches which obstructs reasoning about the behavioral impact of variability. Therefore, we introduce a formal framework for reasoning about artifact reuse in model-based SPL conformance testing. Based on a modal labeled transition system with explicit feature annotations as semantical ground model, we propose a behavioral notion of commonality by means of parameterized testing preorder relations for decorated trace semantics. Thereupon, applications to the reuse of SPL test artifacts are proposed.


Software Product Line Label Transition System Product Line Engineering Trace Semantic Abstract Test Case 
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.
    Abramsky, S.: Observation Equivalence as a Testing Equivalence. Theor. Comput. Sci. 53, 225–241 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A Model-Checking Tool for Families of Services. In: Bruni, R., Dingel, J. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6722, pp. 44–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batory, D.: Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas, pp. 7–20. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernot, G.: Testing against Formal Specifications: A Theoretical View. In: Abramsky, S. (ed.) TAPSOFT 1991. LNCS, vol. 494, pp. 99–119. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloom, B., Fokkink, W., van Glabbeek, R.J.: Precongruence Formats for Decorated Trace Semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 5(1), 26–78 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cichos, H., Oster, S., Lochau, M., Schürr, A.: Model-Based Coverage-Driven Test Suite Generation for Software Product Lines. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Legay, A., Raskin, J.F.: Model Checking Lots of Systems: Efficient Verification of Temporal Properties in Software Product Lines. In: ICSE 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeNicola, R.: Extensional Equivalence for Transition Systems. Acta Inf. 24, 211–237 (1987)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeNicola, R., Hennessy, M.C.B.: Testing Equivalences for Processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 83–133 (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engström, E., Runeson, P.: Software Product Line Testing - A systematic Mapping Study. Information and Software Technology 53(1), 2–13 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grabowski, J., Heymer, S.: Formal Methods and Conformance Testing - or - What are we testing anyway? In: FBT 1998. Shaker Verlag, Aachen (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Tech. rep., CMU-SEI (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keller, R.M.: Formal Verification of Parallel Programs. Commun. ACM 19(7), 371–384 (1976)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Modal I/O Automata for Interface and Product Line Theories. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lochau, M., Goltz, U.: Feature Interaction Aware Test Case Generation for Embedded Control Systems. ENTCS 264, 37–52 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lochau, M., Oster, S., Goltz, U., Schürr, A.: Model-based Pairwise Testing for Feature Interaction Coverage in Software Product Line Engineering. Software Quality Journal, 1–38 (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lochau, M., Schaefer, I., Kamischke, J., Lity, S.: Incremental Model-based Testing of Delta-oriented Software Product Lines. In: 6th TAP. Prague (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olimpiew, E.M.: Model-Based Testing for Software Product Lines. Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oster, S., Markert, F., Ritter, P.: Automated Incremental Pairwise Testing of Software Product Lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 196–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perrouin, G., Sen, S., Klein, J., Le Traon, B.: Automated and Scalable T-wise Test Case Generation Strategies for Software Product Lines. In: ICST 2010, pp. 459–468 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raclet, J.B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: Modal Interfaces: Unifying Interface Automata and Modal Specifications. In: EMSOFT, pp. 87–96 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tschaen, V.: Test Generation Algorithms Based on Preorder Relations. In: Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J.-P., Leucker, M., Pretschner, A. (eds.) Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems. LNCS, vol. 3472, pp. 151–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tevanlinna, A., Taina, J., Kauppinen, R.: Product Family Testing: A Survey. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 29, 12–18 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing. A Tools Approach. M. Kaufmann (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uzuncaova, E., Khurshid, S., Batory, D.S.: Incremental Test Generation for Software Product Lines. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 36(3), 309–322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malte Lochau
    • 1
  • Jochen Kamischke
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Programming and Reactive SystemsTU BraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations