Advertisement

Generating Checking Sequences for a Distributed Test Architecture

  • Hasan Ural
  • Craig Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2644)

Abstract

The objective of testing is to determine whether an implementation under test conforms to its specification. In distributed test architectures involving multiple testers, this objective can be complicated by the fact that testers may encounter problems relating to controllability and observability during the application of tests. The controllability problem manifests itself when a tester is required to send the current input and because it did not send the previous input nor did it receive the previous output it cannot determine when to send the input. The observability problem manifests itself when a tester is expecting an output in response to either the previous input or the current input and because it is not the sender of the current input, it cannot determine when to start and stop waiting for the output. Based on a distinguishing sequence, a checking sequence construction method is proposed to yield a sequence that is free from controllability and observability problems.

Keywords

Finite State Machine Transition Sequence Distinguishing Sequence Transition Pair Test Segment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Boyd and H. Ural, “The synchronization problem in protocol testing and its complexity,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 40, pp. 131–136, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Cacciari and O. Rafiq, “Controllability and observability in distributed testing,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 41, pp. 767–780, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Chen and H. Ural, “Synchronizable checking sequences based on multiple UIO sequences,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol 3, pp. 152–157, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Gill, Intro. to the Theory of Finite-State Machines, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Gonenc, “A method for the design of fault detection experiments”, IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. 19, pp. 551–558, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Guyot and H. Ural, “Synchronizable checking sequences based on UIO sequences,” Proc. IFIP IWPTS’95, Evry, France, 395–407, Sept. 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F.C. Hennie, “Fault detecting experiments for sequential circuits”, Proc. Fifth Ann. Symp. Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, pp. 95–110, Princeton, N.J., 1964.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.M. Hierons and H. Ural, “UIO sequence based checking sequences for distributed test architectures”, Accepted for publication in JIST.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC Information technology — Opens Systems Interconnection — Conformance testing methodology and framework, 9646-1, Part 1: General Concepts, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC Open Distributed Processing, Reference Model, 10748, Parts 1–4, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Z. Kohavi, Switching and Finite Automata Theory, McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Lee and M. Yannakakis, “Testing finite state machines: State identification and verification,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 43, pp. 306–320, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Luo, R. Dssouli, G. v. Bochmann, P. Venkataram and A. Ghedamsi, “Test generation with respect to distributed interfaces,” Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol. 16, 119–132, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K.K. Sabnani and A.T. Dahbura, “A protocol test generation procedure,” Computer Networks vol. 15, pp. 285–297, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Sarikaya and G. v. Bochmann, “Synchronization and specification issues in protocol testing,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 32, pp. 389–395, Apr. 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K.C. Tai and Y.C. Young, “Synchronizable test sequences of finite state machines,” Computer Networks, vol. 13, pp. 1111–1134, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Ural and Z. Wang, “Synchronizable test sequence generation using UIO sequences,” Computer Communications, vol. 16, pp. 653–661, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Ural, X. Wu and F. Zhang, “On minimizing the lengths of checking sequences,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 46, pp. 93–99, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Whittier, “Solutions to Controllability and Observability Problems in Distributed Testing,” Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y.C. Young and K.C. Tai, “Observation inaccuracy in conformance testing with multiple testers,” Proc IEEE WASET, 80–85, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan Ural
    • 1
  • Craig Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations