Advertisement

VISWAS and on Diagnosability with IEEE Std P1522 and UML2.0 Testing Profile

  • Sita Ramakrishnan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2931)

Abstract

We first describe the work on validating interoperable distributed software and systems – VISWAS method [1], which extends UML models to include testability aspects with design by contract notions. In VISWAS, automated test sequence generation is produced from the extended Message Sequence Charts (MSCs) and Live State Charts with temporal action propagation list. Since testability is not independent of the diagnostic process, diagnosability was not explicitly stated as part of the SDLC and testing process in VISWAS. Next, we present our current work on capturing diagnosis flows in MSCs, and some discussion on why standards such as IEEE Std P1522, UML 2.0 Testing Profile, MSC2000 and TTCN-3 are useful for consideration in capturing diagnosability aspects in a testing environment.

Keywords

Test Sequence Mutual Exclusion System Under Test Liveness Property Test Oracle 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ramakrishnan, S.: Validating Interoperable Distributed Software and Systems - VISWAS. PhD Thesis, School CSSE, Monash University, Australia (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voas, J.M., Miller, K.W.: Software Testability - The New Verification. IEEE Software (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ETSI: The Latest Tree and Tabular Combined Notation (TTCN-3) Standard - sixpart standard written within the Technical Committee MTS (Methods for Testing and specification) ES 201 813 parts 1 - 5, part 6 to be released in summer 2003. ETSI (The European Telecommunications Standards Institute) (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sheppard, J., Kaufman, M.: An Integrated View of Test and Diagnostic Information Standards. In: AutoTest Con. 2002, IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference, pp. 45–455. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Padilla, G.: An Execution semantics for MSC2000. Thesis, Uppsala University, Sweden (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haugen, O.: MSC-2000 interaction diagrams for the new millenium. Computer Networks 35, 721–732 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schieferdecker, I., Grabowski, J.: The Graphical Format of TTCN-3 in the context of MSC and UML. In: Sherratt, E. (ed.) SAM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2599, pp. 233–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt, H.: Compatibility of Interoperable Objects in Information Systems Interoperability. In: Kraemer, B., Papazoglou, M., Schmidt, H. (eds.). Research Studies Press, Hertfordshire (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ramakrishnan, S.: Precise Specification Modelling for Testing OO Distributed Reactive Systems. In: 18th IASTED International Conference - Applied Informatics (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ladkin, P.B., Leue, S.: What do Message Sequence Charts Mean. In: Tenny, R.L., Amer, P.D., Uyar, M.U. (eds.) 6th International Conference of Formal Description Techniques, pp. 301–316 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiser, M.: Programmers use slices when debugging. Communications of ACM 25, 446–452 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agrawal, H., Horgan, J.R., London, S., Wong, W.E.: Fault Localization using Execution Slices and Dataflow Tests. In: 6th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Toulose, France, pp. 143–151. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyer, B.: Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Traon, Y.L., Ouabdesselam, F., Robach, C.: Software Diagnosability. In: IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 1998), Paderborn, Germany, pp. 257–266. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baudry, B., Traon, Y.L., Jezequel, J.M.: Robustness and Diagnosability of OO Systems Designed by Contracts. In: 7th International Software Metrics Symposium, London, England, pp. 4–6. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y., Sun, H.: Investigating the Use of Analysis Contracts to Improve the Testability of Object Oriented Code. Carleton University Technical Report TC SCE-01-10, vers. 3, 1–48 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Traon, Y.L., Ouabdesselam, F., Robach, C., Baudry, B.: From diagnosis to diagnosability: axiomatization, measurement and application. The Journal of Systems and Software 65, 31–50 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pickin, S., Jard, C., Heuillard, T., Jezequel, J.M., Desfray, P.: A UML-integrated test description language for component testing. In: UML 2001 Workshop - Practical UML-based Rigorous Development Methods, held jointly with UML 2001 Conference, Toronto, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISOIEC: ISO/IEC Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Conformance Testing Methodology Framework - Part I - General Concepts. ISO/IEC International Standards 9646 (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISOIEC: ISO/IEC Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Conformance Testing Methodology Framework - Part 3 - The Tree and Tabular Combined Notation (TTCN). ISO/IEC International Standards 9646 (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schieferdecker, I., Dai, Z.R., Grabowski, J., Rennoch, A.: The UML 2.0 Testing Profile and its Relation to TTCN-3. In: Hogrefe, D., Wiles, A. (eds.) TestCom 2003. LNCS, vol. 2644, pp. 79–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGregor, J.: The parallel architecture for component testing. Journal of Object- Oriented Programming (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramakrishnan, S., McGregor, J.D.: Extending OCL to support Temporal Operators. In: Workshop on Testing Distributed Component-based Systems held in conjunction with the 21st International Conference on S.E. (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Born, M., Schieferdecker, I., Li, M.: UML Framework for Automated Generation of Component-Based Test Systems. In: 1st. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Applied to Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD 2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sheppard, J.W., Simpson, W.: A Systems View of Test Standardization. In: AutoTestCon 1996. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sheppard, J., Bartolini, A., Orlidge, L.A.: Standardizing Diagnostic Information Using IEEE AI-ESTATE. In: AutoTestCon 1997, pp. 82–87. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheppard, J., Kaufman, M.: Information-based Standards and Diagnostic Component Technology. In: International Workshop on System Test and Diagnosis. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sita Ramakrishnan
    • 1
  1. 1.School CSSEMonash UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations