Advertisement

Software Application Test Case Generation with OBDM

  • K. Koteswara RaoEmail author
  • A. Sudhir Babu
  • P. Anil Kumar
  • Ch. Chandra Mohan
Conference paper
Part of the Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems book series (LAIS, volume 3)

Abstract

Software Testing is the one of the indispensible bustle to guarantee software quality. Exhaustive software testing is not probable at any point of time but optimized testing is practicable. Test case generation is very imperative in attaining the optimized testing i.e. with minimal number of test cases uncovering maximum number of errors. Software experts are following deferent methods for engendering test records; now this tabloid researcher explained generation of the test records centered on OBJECT BEHAVIORAL DEPENDENCE MODEL (OBDM).

Keywords

Testing OBDM Error 

References

  1. 1.
    Darab MAD, Chang CK (2014) Black-box test data generation for GUI testing. In: Proceeding of IEEE international conference on quality software, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arts T, Gerdes A, Kronqvist M (2013) Requirements on automatically generated random test cases. In: Proceedings of IEEE federated conference on computer science and information systems, pp 1347–1354Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tahbildar H, Kalita B (2011) Automated software test data generation: direction of research. Int J Comput Sci Eng Surv (IJCSES) 2(1):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campos J, Abreu R, Fraser G, d’Amorim M (2013) Entropy-based test generation for improved fault localization. In: IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE), pp 257–267Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahmed BS, Sahib MA, Potrus MY (2014) Generating combinatorial test cases using Simplified Swarm Optimization (SSO) algorithm for automated GUI functional testing. Int J Eng Sci Technol 17:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Han AR (2010) Measuring behavioral dependency for improving change proneness prediction in UML based model. J Syst Softw 83:222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arcuri A, Briand L (2012) Formal analysis of the probability of interaction fault detection using random testing. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(5):1088–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McMinn P, Harman M, Lakhotia K, Hassoun Y, Wegener J (2012) Input domain reduction through irrelevant variable removal and its effect on local, global, and hybrid search-based structural test data generation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(2):453–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arcur A (2012) A theoretical and empirical analysis of the role of test sequence length in software testing for structural coverage. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(3):497–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu B, Pang Z (2012) Generating test data based on improved uniform design strategy. In: International conference on solid state devices and materials science, vol 25, pp 1245–1252Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pressman RS (2005) Software engineering; a practitioner approach, 6th edn. Mc Graw-Hill International Edition, Boston ISBN 0071240837Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sommerville I (1995) Software engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading ISBN 0201427656zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beizer B (1990) Software testing techniques, vol 2. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York ISBN-10: 0442206720zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao KK, Raju G, Nagaraj S (2013) Optimizing the software testing efficiency by using a genetic algorithm; a design methodology. ACM SIGSOFT 38(3):1–15Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao KK, Raju G (2015) Developing optimal directed random testing technique to reduce interactive faults-systematic literature and design methodology. Indian J Sci Technol 8(8):715–719 ISSN 0974-6846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao KK, Raju G (2015) Theoretical investigations to random testing variants and its implications. Int J Softw Eng Appl 9(5):165–172Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar JR, Rao KK, Ganesh D (2015) Empirical investigations to find illegal and its equivalent test cases using RANDOM-DELPHI. Int J Softw Eng Appl 9(10):107–116Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rao KK, Raju G (2015) Random testing: the best coverage technique: an empirical proof. IJSEIA 9(12):115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Koteswara Rao
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Sudhir Babu
    • 1
  • P. Anil Kumar
    • 1
  • Ch. Chandra Mohan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CSEPVPSITVijayawadaIndia

Personalised recommendations