A specification-based adaptive test case generation strategy for open operating system standards

Abstract

This paper presents a speci cation-based adaptive test case generation (SBATCGfmethod for integrationtesting an an open operating system standards environment. In the SBATCG method, templates describing abstract state transitions are derived from a modelbased specification, and the templates are refined to the internal structure of each implementation. In this paper, we adopt the Z notation, one of the most widely used formal specification languages.We conducted mutation analysis to study the faultexposure abilities of the SBATCG method and that of a strategy based only on a specification. In OUT experiment, we used a Z version of the ITRON2 reabtime multi-task operating system specification and two commercially available ITRON2 implementations. The results of this experiment show that the SBATCG method can achieve a higher fault detecting ability than can the strategy using only a specification.

Random testing of interrupt-driven software

“…There is a large body of literature on model-based and specification-based testing of embedded systems [9,15,20,24,25,28]. These techniques are able to create precise testing oracles, and they are useful for conformance testing.…”

Minimizing the number of inputs while applying adaptive test cases

“…State-based formalisms such as Finite State Machine and its derivatives have been used extensively for the specification of the externally observable behavior of a wide range of reactive systems [3][4][5][6][7]. A use of such specifications is to construct a set of test cases to be employed during testing of potential implementations of the specified system.…”

Using formal specifications to support testing

“…This introduces a sequencing issue: we may need to apply a sequence of operations in order to set up the state for a test. The typical solution to this problem is to generate a FA from the specification and use this as the basis for sequencing [Dick and Faivre 1993;Hierons et al 2001;Murray et al 1998;Watanabe and Sakamura 1996]. Naturally, if we choose a path through this FA then there is no guarantee that this path is feasible.…”