Testing with model checkers: a survey

Fraser, Gordon; Wotawa, Franz; Ammann, Paul

doi:10.1002/stvr.402

Cited by 146 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 132 publications

(194 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among other techniques, model checking tools have been also used in the process of test case generation; see e.g. [10]. In a typical scenario, a model checker is provided with a model of the system under test and a property of the system to be tested.…”

Section: Overview Of the Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental test case generation using bounded model checking: an application to automatic rating

Anielak

Jakacki²,

Lasota

2014

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we focus on the task of rating solutions to a programming exercise. State-of-the-art rating methods generally examine each solution against an exhaustive set of test cases, typically designed manually. Hence an issue of completeness arises. We propose the application of bounded model checking to the automatic generation of test cases. The experimental evaluation we have performed reveals a substantial increase in accuracy of ratings at a cost of a moderate increase in computation resources needed. Most importantly, application of model checking leads to the finding of errors in solutions that would previously have been classified as correct.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental test case generation using bounded model checking: an application to automatic rating

Anielak

Jakacki²,

Lasota

2014

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These approaches recast the testing problem as a model checking one by abstracting the program under test to a model, expressing the target coverage criterion in temporal logic formulas, and then returning the counterexamples produced by the model checker as test cases. Fraser et al (2009) provide a comprehensive survey on these approaches. These techniques suffer the problem of suitably reconciling tractability and precision when modeling the system under test, must deal with state space explosion, and may diverge while trying to cover infeasible elements.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing structural software coverage by incrementally computing branch executability

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural code coverage criteria have been studied since the early seventies, and now they are well supported by commercial and open source tools, and are commonly embedded in several advanced industrial processes. Most industrial applications still refer to simple criteria, like statement and branch coverage, and consider more complex criteria, like modified condition decision coverage, only rarely and often driven by the requirements of certification agencies. The industrial value of structural criteria is limited by the difficulty of achieving high coverage, due to both the complexity of deriving test cases that execute specific uncovered elements and the presence of many infeasible elements in the code.In this paper, we propose a technique that both generates test cases that execute yet uncovered branches and identifies infeasible branches that can be eliminated from the computation of the branch coverage. In this way, we can increase branch coverage up to closely approximate full coverage, thus improving its industrial value. The algorithm combines symbolic analysis, abstraction refinement, and a novel technique named coarsening, to execute unexplored branches, identify infeasible ones, and mitigate the state space explosion problem. In the paper, we present the technique, and illustrate its effectiveness through a set of experimental results obtained with a prototype implementation. This paper is an extended version of Baluda et al (2010).

show abstract

“…A recent survey is [8]. Generally this work emphasizes glass-box testing (so no learning is necessary), and the use of structural coverage measures to constrain the search space for test cases.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%