Advertisement

Testing MOFScript Transformations with HandyMOF

  • Jokin García
  • Maider Azanza
  • Arantza Irastorza
  • Oscar Díaz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8568)

Abstract

Model transformation development is a complex task. Therefore, having mechanisms for transformation testing and understanding becomes a matter of utmost importance. Understanding, among others, implies being able to trace back bugs to their causes. In model transformations, causes can be related with either the input model or the transformation code. This work describes HandyMOF, a tool that first eases the transition between the effect (i.e. generated code file) and the causes (i.e. input model and transformations) and then provides the means to check the transformation coverage obtained by a test suite. The challenges are twofold. First, the obtainment of input model suites which yield to a quantifiable transformation coverage. Second, providing fine-grained traces that permit to trace back code not just to the transformation rule but to the inner ’print’ statements. A transformation that generates Google Web Toolkit (GWT) code is used as the running example.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudry, B., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., France, R.B., Le Traon, Y., Mottu, J.-M.: Barriers to Systematic Model Transformation Testing. Communications of the ACM 53(6), 139–143 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bezier, B.: Software Testing Techniques. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brottier, E., Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Metamodel-based Test Generation for Model Transformations: An Algorithm and a Tool. In: 17th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2006), Raleigh, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cadavid, J.J., Baudry, B., Sahraoui, H.A.: Searching the Boundaries of a Modeling Space to Test Metamodels. In: 5th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST 2012), Montreal, Canada (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., Muller, P.-A., Le Traon, Y.: Qualifying Input Test Data for Model Transformations. Software and System Modeling (SoSyM) 8(2), 185–203 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B.: Validation in Model-driven Engineering: Testing Model Transformations. In: 1st International Workshop on Model, Design and Validation (SIVOES-MoDeVa 2004), Rennes, France (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gogolla, M., Vallecillo, A.: Tractable Model Transformation Testing. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 221–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    González, C.A., Cabot, J.: ATLTest: A White-Box Test Generation Approach for ATL Transformations. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 449–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A Model Transformation Tool. Science of Computer Programming (SCP) 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuster, J.M., Abd-El-Razik, M.: Validation of Model Transformations - First Experiences using a White Box Approach. In: 3rd International Workshop on Model Development, Validation and Verification (MoDeVa 2006), Genova, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McQuillan, J.A., Power, J.F.: White-Box Coverage Criteria for Model Transformations. In: 1st International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL (MtATL 2009), Nantes, France (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olsen, G.K., Oldevik, J.: Scenarios of Traceability in Model to Text Transformations. In: Akehurst, D.H., Vogel, R., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMDA-FA. LNCS, vol. 4530, pp. 144–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. MOF Model to Text Transformation Language, v1.0. Formal Specification (January 2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/MOFM2T/1.0/PDF
  14. 14.
    OMG. Query/View/Transformation, v1.1. Formal Specification (January 2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.1/PDF/
  15. 15.
    Selim, G.M.K., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J.: Model Transformation Testing: The State of the Art. In: 1st Workshop on the Analysis of Model Transformations, AMT 2012, Innsbruck, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sen, S., Baudry, B., Mottu, J.-M.: On Combining Multi-formalism Knowledge to Select Models for Model Transformation Testing. In: 1st International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation (ICST 2008), Lillehammer, Norway (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tiso, A., Reggio, G., Leotta, M.: Early Experiences on Model Transformation Testing. In: 1st Workshop on the Analysis of Model Transformations, AMT 2012, Innsbruck, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wimmer, M., Burgueño, L.: Testing M2T/T2M Transformations. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 203–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jokin García
    • 1
  • Maider Azanza
    • 1
  • Arantza Irastorza
    • 1
  • Oscar Díaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Onekin Research GroupUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)San SebastianSpain

Personalised recommendations