Advertisement

The UML 2.0 Testing Profile and Its Relation to TTCN-3

  • Ina Schieferdecker
  • Zhen Ru Dai
  • Jens Grabowski
  • Axel Rennoch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2644)

Abstract

UML models focus primarily on the definition of system structure and behaviour, but provide only limited means for describing test objectives and test procedures. However, with the approach towards system engineering with automated code generation, the need for solid conformance testing has increased. In June 2001, an OMG Request For Proposal (RFP) on an UML2.0 Testing Profile (UTP) has been initiated. This RFP solicits proposals for a UML2.0 profile, which enables the specification of tests for structural and behavioural aspects of computational UML models, and which is capable to interoperate with existing test technologies for black box testing. This paper discusses different approaches for testing with UML and discusses the ongoing work of the Testing Profile. Special emphasize is laid on the mapping of UML2.0 testing concepts to the standardized Testing and Test Control Notation (TTCN-3).

Keywords

Test Suite Test Behaviour Test Configuration System Under Test Automate Code Generation 
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.
    J. Hartmann et al.: UML-Based Integration Testing. ISSTA’00. Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ETSI: Methods for Testing and Specifications (MTS); Methodological approach to the use of object-orientation in the standards making process. ETSI EG 201 872 (August 2001). Sophia Antipolis (F).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC 9646-3: Information Technology — Open Systems Interconnection — Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework (CTMF) — Part 3: The Tree and Tabular Combined Notation (TTCN), edition 2, Dec. 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Born et al.: Test Framework for Component-Based Systems. ICDCS’ 2000 & DSVV’2000, Taipei (Taiwan), April 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC 9646: Information Technology — Open Systems Interconnection — Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework (CTMF).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Crichton et al.: Using UML for Automatic Test Generation: ASE’2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Cavarra et al.: AGEDIS Language Specification. Project Deliverable 2.2. The AGEDIS project, 2001, http://www.agedis.de.
  8. 8.
    L. Clark et al.: Achieving Cross-Platform Compatibility with Increased Productivity and Quality using the OMG’s Model Driven Architecture. Lockheed Martin Corporation, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ETSI ES 201 873-1: The Testing and Test Control Notation version 3; Part 1: TTCN-3 Core Language. V2.1.0 (2001-10), 2001; also an ITU-T standard Z.140.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ETSI DES 201 873-3 V2.0.0: The Testing and Test Control Notation version 3; Part3: Graphical Presentation Format for TTCN-3 (GFT). V2.0.0 (2001-11), 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.-C. Fernandez et al.: An experiment in automatic generation of test suites for protocols with verification technology. Science of Computer Programming, 1997. http://citeseer.nj.new.com/2326.html.
  12. 12.
    C. Jard, S. Pickin: COTE — Component Testing using the Unified Modelling Language. — ERCIM News No. 48, January 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Vassiliou-Gioles et al.: Configuration and Execution Support for Distributed Systems.-IWTCS’99, Budapest, Hungary, Sept. 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Rudolph, J. Grabowski, and P. Graubmann. Towards a Harmonization of UML-Sequence Diagrams and MSC. In R. Dssouli, G. v. Bochmann, and Y. Lahav, editors, SDL’99 — The next Millenium. Elsevier, June 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Rudolph, I. Schieferdecker, and J. Grabowski. Development of an MSC/UML Test Format. BT’2000 — Formale Beschreibungstechniken für verteilte Systeme. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, June 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Soley: Model Driven Architecture: An Introduction. http://www.omg.org.
  17. 17.
    The Open Group: ADL 2.0 Translation System, 1998. http://adl.opengroup.org/
  18. 18.
    I. Wilie et al.: UML Action Specification Language (ASL) Reference Guide. Kennedy Carter Ltd., Feb. 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Hightower, N. Lesiecki: Java Tools for eXtreme Programming, Wiley Computer Publishing, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. Schieferdecker, J. Grabowski: The Graphical Format of TTCN-3 in the context of MSC and UML. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop of the SDL Forum Society on SDL and MSC (SAM’2002), Aberystwyth (UK), June, 24–26, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    UML testing profile home page: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/U2TP/

Copyright information

© IFIP 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ina Schieferdecker
    • 1
  • Zhen Ru Dai
    • 2
  • Jens Grabowski
    • 2
  • Axel Rennoch
    • 1
  1. 1.Competence Center for Testing, Interoperability and PerformanceFraunhofer FOKUSBerlin
  2. 2.Institute for TelematicsUniversity of LübeckLübeck

Personalised recommendations