Compositional Testing of Communication Systems

  • Reinhard Gotzhein
  • Ferhat Khendek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3964)


In this paper, we propose the compositional test method (C-method), which exploits the structure of component-based communication sys tems. The C-method first tests each component separately for output and/or transfer faults, using one of the traditional test methods, then checks for composability, and finally tests the composite system for composition faults. To check for composability and to derive the test suite for the detection of com position faults, it is not required to construct the global state machine. In stead, all information is derived from the component state machines, which avoids a potential state explosion and lengthy test cases. Furthermore, the test suite checks for composition faults only. This substantially reduces the size of the test suite and thus the overall test effort.


Test Suite Test Element Input Queue Compositional Test Transfer Fault 
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.


  1. 1.
    Castanet, R., Kone, O.: Deriving Coordinated Testers for Interoperability, Protocol Test Systems, Pau, France, vol. VI C-19 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castanet, R., Kone, O.: Test Generation for Interworking Systems. Computer Communications 23, 642–652 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chow, T.S.: Testing Software Design Modeled by Finite-State Machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 4(3), 178–187 (1978)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desmoulin, A., Viho, C.: Quiescence Management Improves Interoperability Testing. In: Khendek, F., Dssouli, R. (eds.) TestCom 2005. LNCS, vol. 3502, pp. 365–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desmoulin, A., Viho, C.: Formalizing interoperability testing: Quiescence management and test generation. In: Wang, F. (ed.) FORTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3731, pp. 533–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    En-Nouaary, A., Dssouli, R., Khendek, F.: Timed Wp: Testing Real-Time Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(11), 1023–1038 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujiwara, S., Bochmann, G.v., Khendek, F., Amalou, M., Ghedamsi, A.: Test Selection Based on Finite State Models. IEEE ToSE 17(6), 591–603 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gotzhein, R., Khendek, F., Schaible, P.: Micro Protocol Design: The SNMP Case Study. In: Sherratt, E. (ed.) SAM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2599, pp. 61–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hogrefe, D.: OSI Formal Specification Case Study: The InRes Protocol and Service, revised, Report No. IAM-91-012, Update May 1992, University of Berne (May 1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ITU-T Recommendation Z.100 (11/99) - Specification and Description Language (SDL), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kohavi, Z.: Switching and Finite Automata Theory. McGraw Hill, USA (1978)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo, G., Bochmann, G.v., Petrenko, A.: Test Selection Based on Communicating Nondeterministic Finite-State Machines Using a Generalized Wp-Method. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(2), 149–162 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petrenko, A., Bochmann, G.v., Yao, M.: On Fault Coverage of Tests for Finite State Specifications. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29, 81–106 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N., Bochmann, G.v., Dssouli, R.: Testing in Context: Framework and Test Derivation. Computer Communications 19, 1236–1249 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N., Bochmann, G.v.: Fault Models for Testing in Context. In: Proceedings of FORTE 1996, pp. 163–178 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarikaya, B., Bochmann, G.v.: Some Experience with Test Sequence Generation for Protocols. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, North Holland, pp. 555–567 (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Springintveld, J., Vaandrager, F.W., D’Argenio, P.R.: Testing timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science 254(1-2), 225–257 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uyar, M.Ü., Wang, Y., Batth, S.S., Wise, A., Fecko, M.A.: Timing Fault Models for Systems with Multiple Timers. In: Khendek, F., Dssouli, R. (eds.) TestCom 2005. LNCS, vol. 3502, pp. 192–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Bijl, M., Rensink, A., Tretmans, J.: Compositional Testing with ioco. In: Petrenko, A., Ulrich, A. (eds.) FATES 2003. LNCS, vol. 2931, pp. 86–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vuong, S.T., Chan, W.W.L., Ito, M.R.: The UIOv-Method for Protocol Test Sequence Generation. In: 2nd International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, Berlin, Germany (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weyuker, E.J.: Testing Component Based Software: A Cautionary Tale. IEEE Software, 54–59 (September/October 1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard Gotzhein
    • 1
  • Ferhat Khendek
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.ECE DepartmentConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations