Advertisement

Multiparty Testing Preorders

  • Rocco De Nicola
  • Hernán MelgrattiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9533)

Abstract

Variants of the must testing approach have been successfully applied in Service Oriented Computing for analysing the compliance between (contracts exposed by) clients and servers or, more generally, between two peers. It has however been argued that multiparty scenarios call for more permissive notions of compliance because partners usually do not have full coordination capabilities. We propose two new testing preorders, which are obtained by restricting the set of potential observers. For the first preorder, called uncoordinated, we allow only sets of parallel observers that use different parts of the interface of a given service and have no possibility of intercommunication. For the second preorder, that we call independent, we instead rely on parallel observers that perceive as silent all the actions that are not in the interface of interest. We have that the uncoordinated preorder is coarser than the classical must testing preorder and finer than the independent one. We also provide a characterisation in terms of decorated traces for both preorders: the uncoordinated preorder is defined in terms of must-sets and Mazurkiewicz traces while the independent one is described in terms of must-sets and classes of filtered traces that only contain designated visible actions.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Testing Approach Parallel Composition Label Transition System Asynchronous Communication 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Maria Grazia Buscemi with whom we started investigating this topic. We have also to thank the anonymous reviewers of CONCUR and TGC 2015 for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. This research has been partially supported by UBACyT 20020130200092BA and by the MIUR PRIN project CINA.

References

  1. 1.
    Basu, S., Bultan, T., Ouederni, M.: Deciding choreography realizability. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 47, pp. 191–202. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernardi, G., Hennessy, M.: Mutually testing processes. In: D’Argenio, P.R., Melgratti, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2013 – Concurrency Theory. LNCS, vol. 8052, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: Towards a unifying theory for choreography conformance and contract compliance. In: Lumpe, M., Vanderperren, W. (eds.) SC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4829, pp. 34–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: A foundational theory of contracts for multi-party service composition. Fundam. Informaticae 89(4), 451–478 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castagna, G., Gesbert, N., Padovani, L.: A theory of contracts for web services. In: POPL, pp. 261–272 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castagna, G., Gesbert, N., Padovani, L.: A theory of contracts for web services. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 31(5), 1–61 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34, 83–133 (1984)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Honda, K., Vasconcelos, V.T., Kubo, M.: Language primitives and type discipline for structured communication-based programming. In: Hankin, C. (ed.) ESOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1381, pp. 122–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laneve, C., Padovani, L.: The Must preorder revisited. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 212–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazurkiewicz, A.: Trace theory. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Petri Nets: Applications and Relationships to Other Models of Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 255, pp. 278–324. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazurkiewicz, A.W.: Introduction to trace theory. The Book of Traces pp. 3–41 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall International, Hertfordshire (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mostrous, D., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: Global principal typing in partially commutative asynchronous sessions. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 316–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Padovani, L.: Contract-based discovery of web services modulo simple orchestrators. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 411(37), 3328–3347 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Padovani, L.: Fair subtyping for multi-party session types. In: De Meuter, W., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2011. LNCS, vol. 6721, pp. 127–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takeuchi, K., Honda, K., Kubo, M.: An interaction-based language and its typing system. In: Halatsis, C., Philokyprou, G., Maritsas, D., Theodoridis, S. (eds.) PARLE 1994. LNCS, vol. 817, pp. 398–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMT, Institute for Advanced StudiesLuccaItaly
  2. 2.FCEyNUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations