On the Complexity of Input Output Conformance Testing

Noroozi, Neda; Mousavi, Mohammad Reza; Willemse, Tim A. C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07602-7_18

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This work was extended in [5], where the input-enabledness requirement was dropped by introducing a composition with pruning. The quotient operation in the ioco-testing theory was proposed in [11]. In contrast to this paper, the proposed solution is incomplete and may not find the quotient even when it exists.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We provide more flexibility by separating parallel composition from hiding. Finally, there is an assumption in [11] that the output alphabet of the known component specification not shared with the alphabet of the overall system specification must be used for the synchronization with the quotient. In contrast, we provide more flexibility by allowing specifying beforehand the input alphabet of the quotient, thus allowing more control over synchronization between the quotient and the known component.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coinductive ioco was defined in [11] where it is also shown that it coincides with standard ioco when the right-hand side specification is deterministic. Here, we present a slightly modified version.…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…it is a suspension automaton according to Definition 3, the above definition is equivalent to that of [11] and the following lemma holds:…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Complete Composition Operators for IOCO-Testing Theory

Beneš

Daca

Henzinger

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We extend the theory of input-output conformance with operators for merge and quotient. The former is useful when testing against multiple requirements or views. The latter can be used to generate tests for patches of an already tested system. Both operators can combine systems with different action alphabets, which is usually the case when constructing complex systems and specifications from parts, for instance different views as well as newly defined functionality of a previous version of the system.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…it is a suspension automaton according to Definition 3, the above definition is equivalent to that of [11] and the following lemma holds:…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Complete Composition Operators for IOCO-Testing Theory

Beneš

Daca

Henzinger

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Noroozi et al [17] presented a polynomial time reduction from a variation of the SAT problem to the problem of checking ioco-completeness, thus establishing that, under very general assumptions about the IOLTS models -including non-determinism, -that checking ioco-completeness is a PSPACE-complete problem. In a more restricted scenario, treating only deterministic and input-enabled IOLTS models, they proposed a polynomial time algorithm, based on a simulation-like preorder relation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Asynchronous Reactive Systems: Beyond the ioco framework

Bonifacio

Moura²

2021

CLEIej

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual testing can be rather time consuming and prone to errors specially when testing asynchronous reactive systems. Model based testing is a well-established approach to verify reactive systems specified by input output labeled transition systems (IOLTSs). One of the challenges stemming from model based testing is verifying conformance and, also, generating test suites, primarily when completeness is a required property. In order to check whether an implementation under test is in compliance with its respective specification one resorts to some form of conformance relation that guarantees the expected behavior of the implementations, given the behavior of the specification. The ioco relation is an example of such a conformance relation. In this work we study another conformance relation based on formal languages. We also investigate how to generate finite and complete test suites for IOLTS models, and discuss the complexity of the test generation mechanism under this new conformance relation. We also show that ioco is a special case of this new conformance relation. Further, we relate our contributions to more recent works, accommodating the restrictions of their classes of fault models as special cases, and we expose the complexity of generating any complete test suite that must satisfy their restrictions.

show abstract

Compositionality in Model-Based Testing

van Cuyck,

van Arragon,

Tretmans

2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-based testing (MBT) promises a scalable solution to testing large systems, if a model is available. Creating these models for large systems, however, has proven to be difficult. Composing larger models from smaller ones could solve this, but our current MBT conformance relation uioco is not compositional, i.e. correctly tested components, when composed into a system, can still lead to a faulty system. To catch these integration problems, we introduce a new relation over component models called mutual acceptance. Mutually accepting components are guaranteed to communicate correctly, which makes MBT compositional. In addition to providing compositionality, mutual acceptance has benefits when retesting systems with updated components, and when diagnosing systems consisting of components. Keywords: model-based testing • component-based testing • compositional testing • labelled transition systems • uioco This work is part of the project TiCToC -Testing in Times of Continuous Change, project nr 17936, part of the research program MasCot -Mastering Complexity, which is supported by the Dutch Research Council NWO.

show abstract

On the Complexity of Input Output Conformance Testing

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Complete Composition Operators for IOCO-Testing Theory

Complete Composition Operators for IOCO-Testing Theory

Testing Asynchronous Reactive Systems: Beyond the ioco framework

Compositionality in Model-Based Testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About