Advertisement

Abstract

The paper addresses the problem of test derivation from partially defined specifications. A specification is modeled by an Input/Output FSM such that transitions from some states on some inputs are not specified (a partial FSM). Tests have to be derived for a weak conformance relation between FSMs as a conformance relation. The paper further elaborates the state-counting approach by providing an insight into the structure of tests with fault coverage for partial deterministic machines and by offering risk-free optimizations which reduce the length of resulting tests. Based on this approach, a method for deriving tests with fault coverage guarantee (checking experiments) is proposed. It is demonstrated that the method is superior to other test derivation methods for deterministic state machines.

Keywords

I/O FSMs partially defined machines test derivation weak conformance testing fault detection checking experiments. 

References

  1. [1]
    R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, and M. Yannakakis, Distinguishing tests for nondeterministic and probabilistic machines, Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1995, pp. 363–372.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. S. Chow, Test software design modeled by finite state machines, IEEE Transactions, SE-4, 3, 1978, pp. 178–187.Google Scholar
  3. [4]
    S. Fujiwara, G. V. Bochmann, F. Khendek, M. Amalou, and A. Ghedamsi, Test selection based on finite state models, IEEE Transactions, SE-17, 6, 1991, pp. 591–603.Google Scholar
  4. [3]
    J.-C. Fernandez, C. Jard, T. Jéron, and C. Viho, An experiment in automatic generation of test suites for protocols with verification technology, Science of Computer Programming, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Gill, Introduction to the theory of finite-state machines, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 1962.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Grasselli and F. Luccio, A method for minimizing the number of internal states in incompletely specified sequential networks,IEEE Transactions, EC-14, 3, 1965, pp. 350359.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. C. Hennie, Fault detecting experiments for sequential circuits, Proceedings of the IEEE 5th Ann. Symp. On Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, 1964, pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Z. Kohavi, Switching and finite automata theory, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 1970.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    I. Koufareva, A. Petrenko, and N. Yevtushenko, Test generation driven by user-defined fault models, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems, Hungary, 1999, pp. 215–233.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Lee and M. Yannakakis, Principles and methods of testing finite state machines, a survey, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 84, 8, 1996, pp. 1090–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Luo, G. v. Bochmann, and A. Petrenko, Test selection based on communicating nondeterministic finite state machines using a generalized Wp-method, IEEE Transactions, SE-20, 2, 1994, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Luo, A. Petrenko, and G. v. Bochmann, Selecting test sequences for partially specified nondeterministic finite state machines, Proceedings of the IFIP Seventh International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, Japan, 1994, pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. Petrenko, Checking experiments with protocol machines, Proceedings of the IFIP Fourth International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, the Netherlands, 1991, pp. 8394.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Petrenko, G. v. Bochmann, and R. Dssouli, Conformance relations and test derivation, Invited Paper, Proceedings of the IFIP Sixth International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, France, 1993, pp. 157–178.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Petrenko, G. v. Bochmann, and M. Yao, On fault coverage of tests for finite state specifications, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 29, December 1996, pp. 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. Petrenko, N. Yevtushenko, and G. v. Bochmann, Testing deterministic implementations from their nondeterministic specifications, Proceedings of the IFIP Ninth International Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems, Germany, 1996, pp. 125–140.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Petrenko, N. Yevtushenko, A. Lebedev, and A. Das, Nondeterministic state machines in protocol conformance testing, Proceedings of the IFIP Sixth International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, France, 1993, pp. 363–378.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Rezaki and H. Ural, Construction of checking sequences based on characterization sets, Computer Communications, 18, December 1995, pp. 911–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. P. Vasilevskii, Failure diagnosis of automata, Cybernetics, Plenum Publishing Corporation, NY, No. 4, 1973, pp. 653–665.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Yannakakis and D. Lee, Testing finite state machines: fault detection, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 50, 1995, pp. 209–227.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    N. Yevtushenko and A. Petrenko, Checking capabilities of multiple experiments, Automatic Control and Computer Sciences, Allerton Press, Inc., USA, #3, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    N. Yevtushenko and A. Petrenko, Test derivation method for an arbitrary deterministic automaton, Automatic Control and Computer Sciences, Allerton Press, Inc., USA, #5, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Petrenko
    • 1
  • Nina Yevtushenko
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre de recherche informatique de MontréalCRIMMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussia

Personalised recommendations