A More Precise Implementation Relation for Distributed Testing

Abstract

There has been significant interest in distributed testing from an input output transition system. Previous work introduced an implementation relation dioco that was defined in terms of an equivalence relation on traces (sequences of observations). This paper considers an alternative approach in which an observation made in testing is a tuple of local traces, one for each tester. This paper defines such an implementation relation diocoo in terms of the possible observations regarding the system under test and the specification. It shows that diocoo is strictly weaker than dioco but is equivalent to dioco if processes cannot be output-divergent. Interestingly, this shows that the previous definition of dioco is too strong for output-divergent processes. We also prove that the Oracle problem is NP-complete but can be solved in polynomial time if there is an upper bound on the number of local testers.

Complete Agent-driven Model-based System Testing for Autonomous Systems

“…Next, applications from the robotic domain (human-robot collaboration) and the avionic domain, such as autonomous taxiing, take-off, and landing or formation flight with the objective of fuel saving will be investigated. Future work will also cover distributed autonomous systems under test, based on existing results such as [13,24].…”

Bounded Reordering in the Distributed Test Architecture

“…We also require that specifications are input-enabled since this assumption simplifies the analysis. However, it is possible to remove this restriction in our framework [22], [26]. As usual, for work related to distributed testing from IOTSs, we require that processes are not output-divergent: there cannot be a state from which there is an infinite sequence of consecutive transitions whose labels are all outputs.…”

Aplicação de modelos de defeitos na geração de conjuntos de teste completos a partir de Sistemas de Transição com Entrada/Saída

“…• IOTS (28 estudos): entradas do ambiente nunca são rejeitadas pelo sistema e saídas do sistema nunca são rejeitadas pelo ambiente, o que caracteriza a habilidade para entrada, conforme o exemplo apresentado na Figura 11 (extraído de (Tretmans, 2008)). Vários estudos tem considerado que IOTS pode alcançar um estado quiescente (estado na qual nenhuma ação de saída é executada) (Tretmans, 2008;Jard e Jéron, 2005;Jéron e Morel, 1999;Weiglhofer e Wotawa, 2009;Huo e Petrenko, 2004;Hierons, 2015;Simao e Petrenko, 2014;Hierons et al, 2014;Noroozi et al, 2013).…”

“…(Brinksma et al, 1998;Li et al, 2004aLi et al, , 2003Li et al, , 2004bHierons et al, 2008). Porém, há trabalhos que utilizam o modelo IOTS mas com arquitetura distribuída (Hierons et al, 2014;Hierons, 2015).…”

“…Distribuída (Bi et al, 1998;Cavalcanti et al, 2011;Hierons et al, 2008Hierons et al, , 2012bHierons et al, , 2011Hierons et al, , 2012aHierons e Núñez, 2012Li et al, 2004a;Simao e Petrenko, 2011;Hierons et al, 2014;Hierons, 2015) 14…”