Requirements Engineering

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 119–132 | Cite as

Automatic test cases generation from business process models

  • Arezoo Yazdani Seqerloo
  • Mohammad Javad AmiriEmail author
  • Saeed Parsa
  • Mahnaz Koupaee
Original Article


Traditional test case generation approaches focus on design and implementation models while a large percentage of software errors are caused by the lack of understanding in the early phases. One of the most important models in the early phases of software development is business process model which closely resembles the real world and captures the requirements precisely. The aim of this paper is to present a model-based approach to automatically generate test cases from business process models. We first model business processes and convert them to state graphs. Then, the graphs are traversed and transformed to the input format of the “Spec explorer” tool that generates the test cases. Furthermore, we conduct a study to evaluate the impact of process characterizations on the performance of the proposed method.


Business process model Model-based testing Test case generation Spec Explorer 


  1. 1.
    De Cleva Farto G, Endo AT (2015) Evaluating the model-based testing approach in the context of mobile applications. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 314:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backlund A (2010) Utilizing statistics in a model-based testing process. Dissertation, Department of Information Technologies, Abo Akademi UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boghdady PN, Badr N, Hashem M, Tolba MF (2011) Test case generation and test data extraction techniques. Int J Electr Comput Sci (IJECS-IJENS) 11(03):87–94Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdurazik A, Offutt J (2000) Using UML collaboration diagrams for static checking and test generation. In: International conference on the unified modeling language, pp 383–395Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nam DH, Mousset EC, Levy DC (2006) Automating the testing of object behavior: a state chart-driven approach. In: Proceedings of world academy of science, engineering and technology, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pretschner A, Philipps J (2005) 10 methodological issues in model-based testing. In: Model-based testing of reactive systems, pp 281–291Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Far IK, Whittaker JA (2001) Model-based software testing. In: Marciniak JJ (ed) Encyclopedia of software engineering. WileyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Badreddin O, Sturm A, Lethbridge TC (2014) Requirement traceability: a model-based approach. In: IEEE 4th international model-driven requirements engineering workshop (MoDRE), pp 87–91Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alshazly AA, Elfatatry AM, Abougabal MS (2014) Detecting defects in software requirements specification. Alex Eng J 53(3):513–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Utting M, Pretschner A, Legeard B (2012) A taxonomy of model-based testing approaches. Softw Test Verif Reliab 22(5):297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parsa S, Amiri MJ, Ebrahimifard A, Arani MK (2016) Towards a goal-driven method for web service choreography validation. In: 2nd IEEE international conference on web research, pp 66–71Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De la Vera Gonzalez JL, & Diaz JS (2007) Business process-driven requirements engineering: a goal-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th workshop on business process modelingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu ES (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 226–235Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ebrahimifard A, Amiri MJ, Arani MK, Parsa S (2016) Mapping BPMN 2.0 choreography to WS-CDL: a systematic method. J E Technol 7(1):1–23Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muehlen MZ, Indulska M, Kamp G (2007) Business process and business rule modeling: a representational analysis. In: Eleventh international IEEE EDOC workshop, pp 189–196Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roser S, Bauer B (2005) A categorization of collaborative business process modeling techniques. In: 7th IEEE international conference on E-Commerce technology, pp 43–51Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anand S, Burke EK, Chen TY, Clark J, Cohen MB, Grieskamp W, Harman M, Harrold MJ, McMinn P (2013) An orchestrated survey of methodologies for automated software test case generation. J Syst Softw 86(8):1978–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. OMG Specification, Object Management Group, August 2013Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spec Explorer tool., public release January 2005. Accessed 19 May 2018
  20. 20.
    Mohalik S, Gadkari AA, Yeolekar A, Shashidhar KC, Ramesh S (2014) Automatic test case generation from Simulink/Stateflow models using model checking. Softw Test Verif Reliab 24(2):155–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nayak A, Samanta D (2010) Automatic test data synthesis using UML sequence diagrams. J Object Technol 9(2):75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarma M, Mall R (2007) Automatic test case generation from UML models. In: 10th IEEE international conference on information technology (ICIT), pp 196–201Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winter M (1999) Quality assurance for object-oriented software, requirements engineering, and testing wrt requirements specification. Dissertation, University of HagenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Myers GJ, Corey S, Tom B (2011) The art of software testing. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pechtanun K, Kansomkeat S (2012) Generation test case from UML activity diagram based on AC grammar. In: IEEE international conference on computer & information science (ICCIS), vol 2, pp 895–899Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swain R, Panthi V, Behera PK, Mohapatra DP (2012) Automatic test case generation from UML state chart diagram. Int J Comput Appl 42(7):26–36Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertolino A (2003) Software Testing Research and Practice. In: Börger E, Gargantini A, Riccobene E (eds) Abstract State Machines 2003. ASM 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2589. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Offutt J, Abdurazik A (1999) Generating Tests from UML Specifications. In: France R, Rumpe B (eds) «UML»’99 — The Unified Modeling Language. UML 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1723. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim YG, Hong HS, Bae DH, Cha SD (1999) Test cases generation from UML state diagram. IEEE Proc Softw 146:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sokenou D (2006) Generating test sequences from UML sequence diagrams and state diagrams. GI Jahrestagung 2:236–240Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kansomkeat S, Offutt J, Abdurazik A, Baldini A (2008) A comparative evaluation of tests generated from different UML diagrams. In: Ninth ACIS international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking, and parallel/distributed computing, SNPD’08, pp 867–872Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Granda MF (2014) An experiment design for validating a test case generation strategy from requirements models. In: 2014 IEEE 4th international workshop on empirical requirements engineering (EmpiRE), pp 44–47Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swain SK, Mohapatra DP, Mall R (2010) Test case generation based on state and activity models. J Object Technol 9(5):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yuan Y, Li Z, Sun W (2006) A graph-search based approach to BPEL4WS test generation. In: International conference on software engineering advances, pp 14–22Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hauser R, Koehler J (2004) Compiling process graphs into executable code. In: International conference on generative programming and component engineering (GPCE), pp 317–336Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cruz EF, Machado RJ, Santos MY (2014) From business process models to use case models: a systematic approach. In: Enterprise engineering working conference, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dijkman RM, Joosten SM, Utopics OF (2002) An algorithm to derive use case diagrams from business process models. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on software engineering and applications (SEA), pp 679–684Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liew P, Kontogiannis K, Tong T (2005) A framework for business model driven development. In: The 12th IEEE international workshop on software technology and engineering practice (STEP), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Abilov M, Gomez JM (2014) Derivation of event-based state machines from business processes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on new trends in information and communication technologiesGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chinosi M, Trombetta A (2012) A. BPMN: an introduction to the standard. Comput Stand Interfaces 34(1):124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Amiri MJ, Parsa S, Mohammadzade Lajevardi A (2016) Multifaceted service identification: process, requirement and data. Comput Sci Inf Syst 13(2):335–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Amiri MJ, Koupaee M (2017) Data-driven business process similarity. IET Softw 11(6):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sun Y, Su J (2011) Computing degree of parallelism for BPMN processes. In: International conference on service-oriented computing (ICSOC), pp 1–15Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu R, Kumar A (2005) An analysis and taxonomy of unstructured workflows. In: international conference on business process management (BPM), pp 268–284Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Veanes M, Campbell C, Grieskamp W, Schulte W, Tillmann N, Nachmanson L (2008) Model-based testing of object-oriented reactive systems with Spec Explorer. In: Hierons RM, Bowen JP, Harman M (eds) Formal Methods and Testing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4949. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Activiti tool documentation. Accessed 19 May 2018
  47. 47.
    Camunda tool documentation. Accessed 19 May 2018
  48. 48.
    Eshuis R, Kumar A (2016) Converting unstructured into semi-structured process models. Data Knowl Eng 101:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Polyvyanyy A, García-Bañuelos L, Dumas M (2010) Structuring acyclic process models. In: international conference on business process management (BPM), pp 276–293Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arezoo Yazdani Seqerloo
    • 1
  • Mohammad Javad Amiri
    • 2
    Email author
  • Saeed Parsa
    • 3
  • Mahnaz Koupaee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringTehran University, TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of California Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringIran University of Science and Technology, TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations