Advertisement

Model-Based System Testing of Software Product Families

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3520)

Abstract

In software product family engineering reusable artifacts are produced during domain engineering and applications are built from these artifacts during application engineering. Modeling variability of current and future applications is the key for enabling reuse. The proactive reuse leads to a reduction in development costs and a shorter time to market. Up to now, these benefits have been realized for the constructive development phases, but not for testing. This paper presents the ScenTED technique (Scenario based TEst case Derivation), which aims at reducing effort in product family testing. ScenTED is a model-based, reuse-oriented technique for test case derivation in the system test of software product families. Reuse of test cases is ensured by preserving variability during test case derivation. Thus, concepts known from model-based testing in single system engineering, e.g., coverage metrics, must be adapted. Experiences with our technique gained from an industrial case study are discussed and prototypical tool support is illustrated.

Keywords

Product Family Variation Point Sequence Diagram Test Engineer Activity Diagram 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Beizer, B.: Black box testing. Van Nostrand Reinold, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertolino, A., Gnesi, S.: PLUTO: A Test Methodology for Product Families. In: 5th Intl. Workshop on Product Family Engineering (PFE-5), Siena, Italy (November 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binder, R.: Testing Object-Oriented Systems: Models, Patterns, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemens, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Devanbu, P., Karstu, S., Melo, W., Thomas, W.: Analytical and Empirical Evaluation of Software Reuse Metrics. In: 18th Intl. Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 189–199 (July 1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Far, I.K.: Enjoying the Perks of Model-Based Testing. In: Software Testing, Analysis, and Review Conference, STARWEST 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geppert, B., Li, J., Roessler, F., Weiss, D.: Towards Generating Acceptance Tests for Product Lines. In: 8th Intl. Conference on Software Reuse 2004, Madrid, Spain, pp. 35–48. Springer, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Communicating the Variability of a Software Product Family to Customers. In: Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), vol. 2, pp. 15–36. Springer, Hamburg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartmann, J., Vieira, M., Foster, H., Ruder, A.: TDE/UML: A UML-based Test Generator to Support System Testing. In: 5th Annual International Software Testing Conference in India (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartmann, J., Vieira, M., Ruder, A.: UML-based Approach for Validating Product Lines., Intl. Workshop on Software Product Line Testing (SPLiT), Avaya Labs Technical Report, pp. 58–64, Boston, USA (August 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hauber, R., Ziegler, M., Erskine, M., Hilsenbeck, R.: Modellbasiertes Testen. Objektspectrum (3), 20–24 (2003) (in German)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamsties, E., Pohl, K., Reis, S., Reuys, A.: Testing Variabilities in Use Case Models. In: 5th Intl. Workshop on Product Family Engineering (PFE-5), Siena, Italy (November 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGregor, J.: Testing a Software Product Line., Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-022 (December 2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGregor, J., Northrop, L., Jarrad, S., Pohl, K.: Initiating Software Product Lines. IEEE Software 19(4), 24–27 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myers, G.: The Art of Software Testing. Wiley, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nebut, C., Fleurey, F., Le Traon, Y., Jézéquel, J.-M.: A Requirement-based Approach to Test Product Families. In: 5th Intl. Workshop on Product Family Engineering (PFE-5), Siena, Italy (November 2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Reuys, A., Goetz, H., Neumann, J., Weingaertner, J.: Medizintechnik bei Siemens AG Medical Solutions HS IM. In: Boeckle, G., Knauber, P., Pohl, K., Schmid, K. (eds.) Software-Produktlinien: Methoden, Einführung und Praxis, dpunkt, Heidelberg, pp. 247–259 (2004) (in German)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reuys, A., Reis, S., Kamsties, E., Pohl, K.: Derivation of Domain Test Scenarios from Activity Diagrams. In: ntl. Workshop on Product Line Engineering The Early Steps: Planning, Modeling, and Managing (PLEES 2003), Erfurt, Germany (September 2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Riebisch, M., Boellert, K., Streidtferdt, D., Franczyk, B.: Extending the UML to Model System Families. In: World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2000), Dallas, USA (June 2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Linden, F.: Software Product Families in Europe: The Esaps & Café Projects. IEEE Software 19(4), 41–49 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software Systems EngineeringUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations