Abstract
We introduce open tests to support iterative test-driven process modelling. Open tests generalise the trace-based tests of Zugal et al. to achieve modularity: whereas a trace-based test passes if a model exhibits a particular trace, an open test passes if a model exhibits a particular trace up to abstraction from additional activities not relevant for the test. This generalisation aligns open tests better with iterative test-driven development: open tests may survive the addition of activities and rules to the model in cases where trace-based tests do not. To reduce overhead in re-running tests, we establishing sufficient conditions for a model update to preserve test outcomes. We introduce open tests in an abstract setting that applies to any process notation with trace semantics, and give our main preservation result in this setting. Finally, we instantiate the general theory for the DCR Graph process notation, obtaining a method for iterative test-driven DCR process modelling.
Work supported in part by the Innovation Fund project EcoKnow (7050-00034A); the first author additionally by the Danish Council for Independent Research project Hybrid Business Process Management Technologies (DFF-6111-00337).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In [14] DCR graphs model constraints between so-called events labelled by activities. To simplify the presentation, we assume in the present paper that each event is labelled by a unique activity and therefore speak only of activities.
- 2.
In [14] the language of a DCR graph consists of both finite and infinite sequences. To simplify the presentation, we consider only finite sequences in the present paper.
References
Baeten, J.C.M., van Glabbeek, R.J.: Another look at abstraction in process algebra. In: Ottmann, T. (ed.) ICALP 1987. LNCS, vol. 267, pp. 84–94. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-18088-5_8
Basin, D.A., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T.: In the nick of time: proactive prevention of obligation violations. In: Computer Security Foundations, pp. 120–134 (2016)
Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2000)
Beck, K.: Test-driven development: by example (2003)
Bekendtgørelse af lov om social service. Børne- og Socialministeriet, August 2017
Bushnell, D.M.: Research Conducted at the Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering for the Period October 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000. Technical report NASA/CR-2000-210105, NAS 1.26:210105, NASA (2000)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)
Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development, vol. 177. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 269–282. ACM (1979)
Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.: The DCR workbench: declarative choreographies for collaborative processes. In: Behavioural Types: from Theory to Tools, pp. 99–124. River Publishers, Gistrup (2017)
Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 18–33. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_2
Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T.: Replication, refinement & reachability: complexity in dynamic condition-response graphs. Acta Informatica, 1–32 (2017). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00236-017-0303-8#citeas
Ernst, M.D.: Static and dynamic analysis: synergy and duality. In: ICSE Workshop on Dynamic Analysis, pp. 24–27 (2003)
Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Post-proceedings of PLACES 2010. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)
Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 82(5–7), 164–185 (2013)
Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Janzen, D., Saiedian, H.: Test-driven development concepts, taxonomy, and future direction. Computer 38(9), 43–50 (2005)
Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 209–225. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_15
Mei, H., Hao, D., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Zhou, J., Rothermel, G.: A static approach to prioritizing junit test cases. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38(6), 1258–1275 (2012)
Object Management Group: Case Management Model and Notation. Technical report formal/2014-05-05, Object Management Group, version 1.0, May 2014
Object Management Group BPMN Technical Committee: Business Process Model and Notation, Version 2.0 (2013)
Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11837862_18
Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 287–300. IEEE (2007)
Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57 (1977)
Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, vol. 1. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)
Slaats, T.: Flexible Process Notations for Cross-organizational Case Management Systems. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen, January 2015
Zhang, L., Zhou, J., Hao, D., Zhang, L., Mei, H.: Prioritizing JUnit test cases in absence of coverage information. In: Software Maintenance, pp. 19–28. IEEE (2009)
Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The impact of testcases on the maintainability of declarative process models. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_12
Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Creating declarative process models using test driven modeling suite. In: Nurcan, S. (ed.) CAiSE Forum 2011. LNBIP, vol. 107, pp. 16–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29749-6_2
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the reviewers for their help not only to improve the presentation but also to identify interesting areas of future work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Slaats, T., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T. (2018). Open to Change: A Theory for Iterative Test-Driven Modelling. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11080. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98647-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98648-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)