Model based testing in incremental system development

Pretschner, Alexander; Lötzbeyer, Heiko; Philipps, Jan

doi:10.1016/s0164-1212(03)00076-1

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other applications of CHR in testing include [99,77,108,36]. An an effective methodology for verifying properties of imperative programs is their transformation to constraint-based programs [41,12,96].…”

Section: Software Verification and Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint Handling Rules - What Else?

Frühwirth

2015

Rule Technologies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is both an effective concurrent declarative constraint-based programming language and a versatile computational formalism. While conceptually simple, CHR is distinguished by a remarkable combination of desirable features:-a semantic foundation in classical and linear logic, -an effective and efficient sequential and parallel execution model -guaranteed properties like the anytime online algorithm properties -powerful analysis methods for deciding essential program properties. This overview of some CHR-related research and applications is by no means meant to be complete. Essential introductory reading for CHR provide the survey article [125] and the books [56,63]. Up-to-date information on CHR can be found online at the CHR web-page www. constraint-handling-rules.org, including the slides of the keynote talk associated with this article. In addition, the CHR website dtai. cs.kuleuven.be/CHR/ offers everything you want to know about CHR, including online demo versions and free downloads of the language. Executive SummaryConstraint Handling Rules (CHR) [56] tries to bridge the gap between theory and practice, between logical specification and executable program by abstraction through constraints and the concepts of computational logic. CHR has its roots in constraint logic programming and concurrent constraint programming, but also integrates ideas from multiset transformation and rewriting systems as well as automated reasoning and theorem proving. It seamlessly blends multi-headed rewriting and concurrent constraint logic programming into a compact userfriendly rule-based programming language. CHR consists of guarded reactive rules that transform multisets of relations called constraints until no more change occurs. By the notion of constraint, CHR does not need to distinguish between data and operations, and its rules are both descriptive and executable.In CHR, one distinguishes two main kinds of rules: Simplification rules replace constraints by simpler constraints while preserving logical equivalence, e.g., X≤Y∧Y≤X ⇔ X=Y. Propagation rules add new constraints that are logically redundant but may cause further simplification, e.g., X≤Y∧Y≤Z ⇒ X≤Z. Together with X≤X ⇔ true, these rules encode the axioms of a partial order relation. The rules compute its transitive closure and replace inequalities ≤ by equalities = whenever possible. For example, A≤B∧B≤C∧C≤A becomes A=B∧B=C. More program examples can be found in Section 2. Semantics of CHR are discussed in Section 3.

show abstract

Section: Software Verification and Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint Handling Rules - What Else?

Frühwirth

2015

Rule Technologies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many previous history-based [8,19,22] and automata-based [2,21,23] approaches require specific and deterministic test cases to be defined. In contrast, we use random testing and assume-guarantee specifications to capture open environments, where environment behavior is arbitrary within the bounds of an assumption predicate.…”

Section: Related and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper shows how open environments can be mimicked by underspecified formal descriptions based on observable behavior in order to validate the behavior of software units in open distributed environments at the modeling level. Model-based testing in the early development stages makes the testing process more effective [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating Behavioral Component Interfaces in Rewriting Logic

Johnsen

Owe

Torjusen

2006

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many distributed applications can be understood in terms of components interacting in an open environment such as the Internet. Open environments are subject to change in unpredictable ways, as other applications may arrive, evolve, or disappear. In order to validate components in such environments, it can be useful to build a simulation environment which reflects this highly unpredictable behavior. In this paper, the validation of components with respect to behavioral interfaces is considered. Behavioral interfaces specify semantic requirements on the observable behavior of components, expressed in an assume-guarantee style. In our approach, a rewriting logic model is transparently extended with the history of all observable communication, and metalevel strategies are used to guide the simulation of environment behavior. Over-specification of the environment is avoided by allowing arbitrary environment behavior within the bounds of the assumption on observable behavior, while the component is validated with respect to the guarantee of the behavioral interface.

show abstract

“…Note that we are not interested in classifying MBT techniques based on, for example, their underlying (formal) semantics and test generation algorithms (i.e. based on MBT taxonomies such as that proposed in [9]). In fact, such classifications and studies are helpful if a concrete MBT technique needs to be selected (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Model based testing in incremental system development

Cited by 12 publications

References 38 publications

Constraint Handling Rules - What Else?

Constraint Handling Rules - What Else?

Validating Behavioral Component Interfaces in Rewriting Logic

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About