Dealing with Concurrent Regions during Scenario Generation from Activity Diagrams

  • Robert Chandler
  • Chiou Peng Lam
  • Huaizhong Li
Conference paper

Abstract

Scenarios are a popular focus for the acquisition and validation of system requirements and in the generation of system-based test-cases. However, generating scenarios manually is a tedious process, which may introduce errors or produce incomplete scenario sets. This paper discusses an approach to scenario capture, in support of requirements engineering that can then be used for test-scenario capture and test-case generation. The approach has been automated successfully, producing usage-scenarios from UML (Unified Modelling Language) Activity Diagrams without the need for manual intervention. The paper walks through the approach - with a specific focus on the processing of concurrent regions - and compares the results with other approaches applied to the same UML activity model.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    T. A. Alspaugh, D. J. Richardson, and T. A. Standish. Scenarios, state machines and purpose-driven testing. In SCESM ’05: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on Scenarios and state machines: models, algorithms and tools, pages 1–5, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Amyot, X. He, Y. He, and D. Y. Cho. Generating scenarios from use case map specifications. In 3rd International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC’03), pages 108–115, Dallas, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    X. Bai, C. P. Lam, and H. Li. An approach to generate the thin-threads from the UML diagrams. In 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’04), pages 546–552, Hong Kong, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Bertolino, P. Inverardi, and H. Muccini. Formal methods in testing software architectures. In Formal Methods for Software Architectures: Third International School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems: Software Architectures, SFM 2003, volume 2804/2003, pages 122–147, Bertinoro, Italy, 2003. LNCS.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. K. Breitman, J. C. S. d. P. Leite, and D. Berry. Supporting scenario evolution. Requirements Engineering, 10(2):112–131, May 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Briand, Y. Labiche, and G. Soccar. Automating impact analysis and regression test selection based on UML designs. In International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’02), pages 252–261, Montreal, Canada, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Chandler, C. P. Lam, and H. Li. AD2US: An automated approach to generating usage scenarios from UML activity diagrams. In 12th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’05), pages 9–16, Taipei, Taiwan, December 15-17 2005. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Chandler, H. Li, and C. P. Lam. Generating usage scenarios automatically from UML activity diagrams. Technical Report TR-06-01, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia, May 2006. Available: textsfunderline http://www.scis.ecu.edu.au/research/groups/se/selectedpublications.aspx.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Gogolla, J. Bohling, and M. Richters. Validation of UML and OCL models by automatic snapshot generation. In The Unified Modelling Language: Modelling Languages and Applications (UML’2003), volume 2863/2003, pages 265–279. LNCS, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Hartman. AGEDIS: The final project report. Technical Report AGEDIS -1999 -20218, IBM, underline hartman@il.ibm.com , Feb 16 2004.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Kosters, H.-W. Six, and M. Winter. Coupling use cases and class models as a means for validation and verification of requirements specification. Requirements Engineering, 6(1):14, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. J. Lee, S. D. Cha, and Y. R. Kwon. Integration and analysis of use cases using modular Petri nets in requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(12), Nov 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Li and C. P. Lam. Using ant-like agents to generate test threads from UML diagrams. LNCS, SCI-E(Jan), 2005.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    X. Li, J. Hu, L. Bu, J. Zhao, and G. Zheng. Consistency checking of concurrent models for scenario-based specifications. LNCS, 3530(Jan):298–312, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. P. L’opez-Grao, J. Merseguer, and J. Campos. From UML activity diagrams to stochastic Petri nets: application to software performance engineering. In WOSP ’04: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on Software and performance, pages 25–36, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. Mitchell, R. Thomson, and P. Bristow. Scenario synthesis from imprecise requirements. LNCS, 3319(Jan):122–137, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    C. Nebut, F. Fleury, Y. Le Traon, and J.-M. J’ez’equel. Automatic test generation: A use case driven approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 32(3):140–155, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. of Defense. End-to-end integration test guidebook. Technical report Version 1.0, USA Dept. of Defense, Dec 2000. Available: textsfunderline http://asusrl.eas.asu.edu/E2E/paper/dec28Book.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Offutt, L. Shaoying, A. Abdurazik, and P. Ammann. Generating test data from state-based specifications. The Journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 13(1):25–53, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    OMG. Unified Modelling Language, v2.0 superstructure. Standard - Technical Report ptc/03-08-02, Object Management Group, April 2004 2004.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    G. Sabaliauskaite, F. Matsukawa, S. Kusomoto, and K. Inoue. An experimental comparison of checklist-based reading and perspective-based reading for UML design document inspection. In 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE’02), pages 148–160, Nara, Japan, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. E. Shin, A. G. Sutcliffe, and A. Gregoriades. Scenario advisor tool for requirements engineering. Requirements Engineering, 10(2):132–145, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. S. Som’e. Enhancement of a use cases based requirements engineering approach with scenarios. In 12th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’05), pages 25–32, Taipei, Taiwan, December 15-17 2005. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. G. Sutcliffe, N. A. Maiden, S. Minocha, and D. Manuel. Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(12):1072–1088, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    L. Wang, J. Yuan, X. Yu, J. Hu, X. Li, and G. Zheng. Generating test cases from UML activity diagram based on gray-box method. In 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’04), pages 284–291, Busan, Korea, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    D. Xu, H. Li, and C. P. Lam. Using adaptive agents to automatically generate test scenarios from the UML activity diagrams. In 12th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’05), pages 385–392, Taipei, Taiwan, December 15-17 2005. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Chandler, H. Li, and C. P. Lam. UML Models with Activity Diagrams: for Case Studies. Technical Report TR-06-02, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia, November 2006. Available: textsfunderline http://www.scis.ecu.edu.au/research/groups/se/selectedpublications.aspx.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Chandler
    • 1
  • Chiou Peng Lam
    • 1
  • Huaizhong Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Edith Cowan UniversityWestern Australia 6050

Personalised recommendations