Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Axiom Based Testing for Fun and Pedagogy

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Formal Methods – Fun for Everybody (FMFun 2019)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1301))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 329 Accesses

Abstract

The intricacies of programming demands a precise understanding of a programming language, its libraries and its conventions. Programming education normally does not emphasise this well enough, often leaving technicalities vague and omitting corner cases. In addition, students starting computing studies at university have about 12 years of basic education behind them. The intuition the students bring with them to university is in many ways at odds with the technicalities of programming. This mismatch is later the source of many computer related vulnerabilities and in some cases causes disasters.

Here we advocate axiom based testing as a technique to master these demands. Axiom based testing is based on programming language semantics, not mathematical semantics. There is no need for quantifiers in the specifications, and no need for formal reasoning to achieve the benefits. Using axiom based testing does not presuppose more than the ability to write methods and assertions, a part of any beginning programming course. Thus axiom based testing is a very lightweight formal method. It can be used both to understand other people’s code, e.g., libraries and APIs, and to validate own code. Axiom based testing integrates naturally with unit testing and can be an aid for both students and practitioners in getting the technical details right. Our experience is that axiom based testing can easily be taught at the undergraduate level. It is as fun to use as unit testing, giving the same direct feedback.

This paper contains many hands on examples, mostly in Java. It can be the basis for self studies in axiom based testing for Java or for teaching axiom based testing for any programming language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is of course a problem with the conditional axioms like antisymmetry, where few, if any, of the test values actually will reach the target of the conditional. Quickcheck [6] has special treatment of conditionals in order to generate random data that actually reaches the target.

  2. 2.

    The end of [19] shows additional benefits.

References

  1. Bagge, A.H., David, V., Haveraaen, M.: Testing with axioms in C++ 2011. J. Object Technol. 10, 10:1–10:32 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2011.10.1.a10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beck, K.: Extreme programming: a humanistic discipline of software development. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 1–6. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0053579

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Beckert, B., Schlager, S.: Refinement and retrenchment for programming language data types. Formal Asp. Comput. 17(4), 423–442 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-005-0073-x

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergstra, J.A., Tucker, J.: Algebraic specifications of computable and semi-computable data types. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50, 137–181 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(87)90123-X

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bloch, J.: Extra, extra - read all about it: Nearly all binary searches and merge sorts are broken. https://ai.googleblog.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html. Accessed 23 July 2020

  6. Claessen, K., Hughes, J.: QuickCheck: a lightweight tool for random testing of Haskell programs. In: ICFP 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 268–279. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/351240.351266

  7. Correctness 2020: Fourth International Workshop on Software Correctness for HPC Applications. https://correctness-workshop.github.io/2020/. Accessed 08 Apr 2020

  8. Dahl, O.J., Myhrhaug, B., Nygaard, K.: SIMULA 67 Common Base Language, Vol. S-2. Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  9. David, V.: Catsfoot (2011). https://catsfoot.sourceforge.net/

  10. Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, non determinacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1145/360933.360975

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Eclipse. https://www.eclipse.org. Accessed 22 June 2020

  12. Gannon, J.D., McMullin, P.R., Hamlet, R.G.: Data-abstraction implementation, specification, and testing. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 3(3), 211–223 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1145/357139.357140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gopalakrishnan, G., et al.: Report of the HPC correctness summit, Jan 25–26, 2017, Washington, DC. CoRR abs/1705.07478 (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07478

  14. Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G., Bracha, G., Buckley, A., Smith, D., Bierman, G.: The Java language specification - Java SE 14 Edition. Technical report. JSR-389 Java SE 14, Oracle America (Feb 2020). https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/

  15. Hamlet, R.: Random testing. In: Marciniak, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 970–978. Wiley, Hoboken (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/0471028959.sof268

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Haveraaen, M., Kalleberg, K.T.: JAxT and JDI: the simplicity of JUnit applied to axioms and data invariants. In: OOPSLA Companion 2008: Companion to the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, pp. 731–732. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1449814.1449834

  17. Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–583 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1145/363235.363259

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoare, C.A.R., Wirth, N.: An axiomatic definition of the programming language PASCAL. Acta Inf. 2, 335–355 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289504

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Hughes, J.: Quickcheck testing for fun and profit. In: Hanus, M. (ed.) PADL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4354, pp. 1–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69611-7_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Hughes, J.: Experiences from teaching functional programming at Chalmers. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 43(11), 77–80 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1480828.1480845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ISO/IEC 14882:2017 - Programming languages - C++ (2017). https://www.iso.org/standard/68564.html

  22. ISO/IEC 9899:2018 - Information technology - Programming languages - C (2018). https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html

  23. Java platform, standard edition & Java development kit - version 14 API specification. https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/14/docs/api/java.base/module-summary.html. Accessed 29 June 2020

  24. Junit 5. https://junit.org/junit5/. Accessed 24 June 2020

  25. Kalleberg, K.T., Haveraaen, M.: JAxT - Java Axiomatic Testing. https://www.ii.uib.no/mouldable/testing/. Accessed 24 June 2020

  26. Liskov, B.: Keynote address - data abstraction and hierarchy. In: Addendum to the Proceedings on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (Addendum), pp. 17–34, OOPSLA 1987. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (1987). https://doi.org/10.1145/62138.62141

  27. Meyer, B.: Applying “Design by contract”. Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/2.161279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Saff, D.: Theory-infected: or how I learned to stop worrying and love universal quantification. In: OOPSLA 2007: Companion to the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems and Applications Companion, pp. 846–847. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1297846.1297919

  29. Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Mind the gap! Abstract versus concrete models of specifications. In: Penczek, W., Szałas, A. (eds.) MFCS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1113, pp. 114–134. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61550-4_143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bergen Language Design Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Magne Haveraaen

Authors
  1. Magne Haveraaen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magne Haveraaen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

    Antonio Cerone

  2. Swansea University, Swansea, UK

    Markus Roggenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Haveraaen, M. (2021). Axiom Based Testing for Fun and Pedagogy. In: Cerone, A., Roggenbach, M. (eds) Formal Methods – Fun for Everybody. FMFun 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1301. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71374-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71374-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71373-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71374-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation