Filtering Test Models to Support Incremental Testing

Jääskeläinen, Antti

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15585-7_8

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…how to support iterative development with the test models that might cover functionality that has not yet been implemented (see, e.g. model filtering by Jääskeläinen 38).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles and opportunities in deploying model‐based GUI testing of mobile software: a survey

Janicki¹,

Katara

Pääkkönen

2011

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-based testing has not been widely deployed in industry yet. There seem to be both technical and non-technical reasons for this situation. A survey among mobile software testing professions in Finland was conducted that aimed at investigating possible obstacles and opportunities towards wider deployment of this technology. This paper discusses the results and provides conclusions that indicate that at least in this context, there is much interest among practitioners towards the technology. However, more research is needed to make model creation and maintenance as easy as possible. In addition, metrics should be developed that can be used to report test results in the same manner as using existing testing techniques, enabling comparison between different approaches. Special emphasis should also be placed on enabling quick bug localization. Furthermore, it seems that successful pilot projects are a key to wider industrial adoption. Based on the survey findings, an agenda for the future model-based testing research is outlined.

show abstract

“…how to support iterative development with the test models that might cover functionality that has not yet been implemented (see, e.g. model filtering by Jääskeläinen 38).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles and opportunities in deploying model‐based GUI testing of mobile software: a survey

Janicki¹,

Katara

Pääkkönen

2011

Software Testing Verif & Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of MBT, incremental FSM-based testing, which is extensively researched in the past few years [37][38][39][40][41][42], can provide promising ideas for addressing the requirements that have not been addressed in existing MBT-for-agile techniques. This approach aims at modularising test case generation and execution based on evolving test models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MBT in agile/lightweight processes: a process‐centred review

Taromirad

Ramsin

2019

IET softw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a process-driven view on the use of model-based testing (MBT) in agile/lightweight processes. It argues that process-related aspects of MBT and agile processes should be explicitly considered in any practical MBT approach intended for use in agile development (AD). It demonstrates that an effective MBT approach for lightweight processes has to specify how MBT activities are integrated into a development process, how and when MBT artefacts are generated in relation to other development artefacts, and who would carry out MBT activities. Accordingly, a set of integration criteria is introduced for complete incorporation of MBT into agile/lightweight processes. The integration criteria demonstrate the specific characteristics of an appropriate MBT process for AD processes, and help identify the benefits and shortcomings of existing methods on the use of MBT in such processes. Evaluation of existing works based on the proposed integration criteria shows that they have all focused on minimal modelling, and only one method has considered the 'evolution' of test models and the 'reuse' of test cases, whereas 'evolution' and 'reuse' are essential characteristics of agile processes, which have to be addressed in any MBT approach intended for such processes.

show abstract

“…An interesting aspect of incremental test generation for evolving systems is when only a part of the given specification is implemented. Jääskeläinen [16] presents a solution in which the unimplemented parts of the specification can be filtered out to support incremental testing: the remaining parts can be used to generate test cases for the implemented portion of the product. Simão and Petrenko [25] investigate the case how a predefined test set could be incrementally extended until the desired fault coverage is achieved, but they do not deal with evolving, changing specifications.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Incremental Maintenance of Transition Tour

Németh

Pap

2014

Fundamenta Informaticae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While evolutionary development methodologies have become increasingly prevalent, incremental testing methods are lagging behind. Most traditional test generation algorithms -including the Transition Tour method -rebuild test sequences from scratch even if minimal changes to the system have been made. In the current paper we propose two incremental algorithms to update a Transition Tour test sequence after changes in a deterministic finite state machine model. Our solution uses existing information -the Eulerian graph of a previous version of the system and an Euler tour in it -to update the test cases of the system in response to modification. The first algorithm keeps an Eulerian graph up to date, while the second algorithm maintains an Euler tour in the augmented graph. Analytical and practical analyses show that our algorithms are very efficient in the case of changing specifications. We also demonstrate our methods through an example.Finite State Machines (FSMs) have been widely used for decades to model systems in various areas, such as sequential circuits [11], communication protocols [14], some types of programs [1] (in lexical analysis, pattern matching, etc.) and object-oriented software testing [2]. Several specification languages, such as SDL [15] and ESTELLE [31], are extensions of the FSM formalism.An FSM M is a quadruple M = (I, O, S, T ) where I, O, and S are the finite and nonempty sets of input symbols, output symbols and states, respectively. T ⊆ S × I × O × S is the finite set of transitions between states. Each transition t ∈ T is a quadruple t = (s j , i, o, s k ), where s j ∈ S is the start state, i ∈ I is an input symbol, o ∈ O is an output symbol and s k ∈ S is the next state. FSM M is deterministic if for all (s j , i) state-input pairs there exists at most one transition in T .An FSM can be represented by a state transition graph, a directed edge-labeled graph whose nodes correspond to the states of the machine and whose edges to the state transitions. Each edge is labeled with a pair of input and output symbols, which is associated with the corresponding transition.In the description of our algorithms, we use the graph terminology because it describes a more general approach. However, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of our algorithms is to maintain a test sequence of a system, whose description is given in the form of an FSM.In the rest of the paper we consider strongly connected, deterministic FSMs.

show abstract

Filtering Test Models to Support Incremental Testing

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Obstacles and opportunities in deploying model‐based GUI testing of mobile software: a survey

Obstacles and opportunities in deploying model‐based GUI testing of mobile software: a survey

MBT in agile/lightweight processes: a process‐centred review

The Incremental Maintenance of Transition Tour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About