Conditions for Avoiding Controllability Problems in Distributed Testing

  • Jessica Chen
  • Lihua Duan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4260)


Finite-state-machine-based conformance testing has been extensively studied in the literature in the context of centralized test architecture. With a distributed test architecture which involves multiple remote testers, the application of a test sequence may encounter controllability problems. This problem can be overcome by introducing additional external coordination messages exchanged among remote testers. Such an approach requires for extra resources for the communication among remote testers and sometimes suffers from unexpected delay. It is thus desirable to avoid the controllability problem by selecting suitable test sequences. However, this is not always possible. For some finite state machines, we cannot generate a test sequence without using external coordination messages and apply it without encountering controllability problems during testing. In this paper, we present sufficient and necessary conditions on a given finite state machine for constructing test sequences so that it does not involve external coordination messages and its application to the implementation under test is free from controllability problems.


Conformance testing finite state machine controllability test sequence unique input/output sequence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aho, A.V., Dahbura, A.T., Lee, D., Uyar, M.U.: An optimization technique for protocol conformance test generation based on UIO sequences and Rural Chinese Postman Tours. IEEE Trans. Comm. 39(11), 1604–1615 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bochmann, G.v., Petrenko, A., Bellal, O., Maguiraga, S.: Automating the process of test derivation from SDL specifications. In: Proc. of 8th SDL Forum (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyd, S., Ural, H.: The synchronization problem in protocol testing and its complexity. Information Processing Letters 4(3), 131–136 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cacciari, L., Rafiq, O.: Controllability and observability in distributed testing. Information and Software Technology 41, 767–780 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, J., Hierons, R.M., Ural, H.: Conditions for resolving observability problems in distributed testing. In: de Frutos-Escrig, D., Núñez, M. (eds.) FORTE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3235, pp. 229–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, J., Hierons, R.M., Ural, H.: Overcoming observability problems in distributed test architectures. Information Processing Letter 98(5), 177–182 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J., Ural, H.: Detecting observability problems in distributed testing. In: Uyar, M.Ü., Duale, A.Y., Fecko, M.A. (eds.) TestCom 2006. LNCS, vol. 3964, pp. 213–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow, T.S.: Testing software design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. SE-4(3), 178–187 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eppstein, D.: Reset sequences for monotonic automata. SIAM J. Computing 19(3), 500–510 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonenc, G.: A method for the design of fault detection experiments. IEEE Trans. Computers 19(6), 551–558 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hennie, F.C.: Fault detecting experiments for sequential circuits. In: Proc. of 5th Ann. Symp. Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, pp. 95–110 (1964)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hierons, R.M., Harman, M.: Testing conformance to a quasi-non-deterministic stream X-machine. Formal Aspects of Computing 12(6), 423–442 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hierons, R.M., Ural, H.: Reduced length checking sequences. IEEE Transactions on Computers 51(9), 1111–1117 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hierons, R.M., Ural, H.: UIO sequence based checking sequences for distributed test architectures. Information and Software Technology 45(12), 793–803 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC 9646. Information technology – Open Systems Interconnection – Conformance testing methodology and framework – Part 1-7. ISO (June 1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, W.L., Porter, J.H., Ackley, S.I., Ross, D.T.: Automatic generation of efficient lexical processors using finite state techniques. Communications of the ACM 11(12), 805–813 (1968)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kohavi, Z.: Switching and finite automata theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lai, R.: A survey of communication protocol testing. Journal of Systems and Software 62, 21–46 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Testing finite state machines: state identification and verification. IEEE Tran. Computers 43, 306–320 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Principles and methods of testing finite state machines — a survey. Proceedings of The IEEE 84(8), 1090–1123 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo, G., Das, A., von Bochmann, G.: Generating tests for control portion of SDL specification. In: Proc. of Protocol test systems VI, pp. 51–66 (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo, G., Dssouli, R., Bochmann, G.V., Venkataram, P., Ghedamsi, A.: Test generation with respect to distributed interfaces. Computer Standards and Interfaces 16, 119–132 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller, R.E., Paul, S.: On the generation of minimal length conformance tests for communications protocols. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1(1), 116–129 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moore, E.F.: Gedanken-experiments on sequenctial machines. Automata Studies 34, 129–153 (1956)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Motteler, H., Chung, A., Sidhu, D.: Fault coverage of UIO-based methods for protocol testing. In: Proc. of IFIP TC6/WG6.1 6th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, pp. 21–33 (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naito, S., Tsunoyama, M.: Fault detection for sequential machines by transition tours. In: Proc. of 11th. IEEE Fault Tolerant Computing Symposium, pp. 238–243 (1981)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pomeranz, I., Reddy, S.M.: Test generation for multiple state-table faults in finite-state machines. IEEE Transactions on Computers 46, 783–794 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sabnani, K.K., Dahbura, A.T.: A protocol test generation procedure. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 4(15), 285–297 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saleh, K., Ural, H., Williams, A.: Test generation based on control and data dependencies within system specifications in SDL. Computer Communications 23(7), 609–627 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sarikaya, B., Bochmann, G.V.: Synchronization and specification issues in protocol testing. IEEE Transactions on Communications 32, 389–395 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sidhu, D.P., Leung, T.-K.: Formal methods for protocol testing: A detailed study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15(4), 413–426 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tan, Q.M., Petrenko, A.G.: Modeling basic LOTOS by FSMs for conformance testing. In: Proc. of 15th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (PSTV 15), pp. 137–152 (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tarjan, R.: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. J. SIAM Comput. 1(2), 146–160 (1972)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ural, H., Whittier, D.: Distributed testing without encountering controlability and observability problems. Information Processing Letters 88, 133–141 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ural, H., Wu, X., Zhang, F.: On minimizing the lengths of checking sequences. IEEE Transactions on Computers 46(1), 93–99 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Chen
    • 1
  • Lihua Duan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations