Advertisement

Modeling Basic LOTOS by FSMs for Conformance Testing

  • Q. M. Tan
  • A. Petrenko
  • G. V. Bochmann
Chapter
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

A challenging issue is the derivation of a finite test suite from a given LOTOS specification modeled by a labeled transition system (LTS) such that complete fault coverage is guaranteed for a certain class of implementations with respect to a particular conformance relation. It is shown in this paper that this problem can be solved by translating an LTS into an input/output finite state machine (FSM) for trace or failure semantics, respectively, and subsequently applying existing FSM-based methods for test derivation with complete fault coverage. It is also demonstrated that the obtained tests can be further optimized taking into account the specifics of the FSMs constructed from the LTSs.

Keywords

Test Suite Finite State Machine Label Transition System Conformance Testing Implementation Under Test 
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. Arkko. (1993) On the existence and production of state identification machines for labeled transition systems. In IFIP Formal Description Techniques VI (ed. R. L. Tenney, et al), 351–365.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. v. Bochmann, A. Petrenko, and M. Yao. (1994) Fault coverage of tests based on finite state models. In the IFIP 7th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems 91–106, Japan.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E. Brinksma. (1988) A theory for the derivation of tests. In IFIP Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VIII (ed. S. Aggarwal and K. Sabnani ), 63–74.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. R. Cavalli and S. U. Kim. (1992) Automated protocol conformance test generation based on formal methods for LOTOS specifications. In the IFIP 5th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems (ed. G.v. Bochmann, et al), 212–220.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. S. Chow. (1978) Testing software design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-4(3): 178–187.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    K. Drira, P. Azema, and F. Vernadat. (1994) Refusal graphs for conformance tester generation and simplification: a computational framework. In IFIP Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification XIII (ed. A. Danthine, et al), 257–272, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Fujiwara and G. v. Bochmann. (1991) Testing nonterministic finite state machine with fault coverage. In the IFIP 4th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems (ed. J. Kroon, et al), 267–280.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Fujiwara, et al. (1991) Test selection based on finite state models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-17(6): 591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. J. Glabbeek. (1990) The linear time-branching time spectrum. Lecture Notes on Computer Science, 14 (1): 25–59.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Z. Kohavi. (1970) Switching and Finite Automata Theory. McGraw-Hill Computer Science Series, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Luo, G. v. Bochmann, and A. Petrenko. (1994) Test selection based on communicating nondeterministic finite state machines using a generalized Wp-method. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-20(2): 149–162.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Luo, A. Petrenko, and G. v. Bochmann. (1994) Selecting test sequences for partially-specified nondeterministic finite machines. In the IFIP 7th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems 91–106, Japan.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. Petrenko. (1991) Checking experiments with protocol machines. In the IFIP 4th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems (ed. J. Kroon, et al), 83–94.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Petrenko, G. v. Bochmann, and R. Dssouli. (1993) Conformance relations and test derivation. In the IFIP 6th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems (ed. O. Rafig ), 91–106.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Petrenko, N. Yevtushenko, and G. v. Bochmann. (1994) Experiments on nondeterministic systems for the reduction relation. Technical Report 932, Dept. of I.R.O., University of Montreal.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. H. Pitt and D. Freestone. (1990) The derivation of comformance tests from LOTOS specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-16(12): 1337–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. Sabnani and A. T. Dahbura. (1988) A protocol test generation procedure. Com-puter Networks and ISDN Systems 15(4):285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Q. M. Tan, A. Petrenko, and G. v. Bochmann (1995) Modeling Basic LOTOS by FSMs for Conformance Testing. Technical Report 958, Dept. of I.R.O., University of Montreal.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Tretmans. (1990) Test case derivation from LOTOS specifications. In the IFIP 2th International Conf. on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Sysytems and Communication Protocols (ed. S. T. Vuong ), 345–359.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Q. M. Tan
    • 1
  • A. Petrenko
    • 1
  • G. V. Bochmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department d’IROUniversité de MontréalCentre-ville, MontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations