Advertisement

Defining Observation Objectives for Reactive and Distributed Systems

  • Timo Aaltonen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2931)

Abstract

Observation objectives are behaviours that an implementation under test is expected to exhibit during testing. It is desirable to express the objectives at a high level of behavioural abstraction. Unfortunately, current specification methods do not offer proper expressiveness for this. In this paper we demonstrate how observation objectives can be declared when the specification of a system consists of a formal abstraction hierarchy.

Keywords

Testing Engineer Abstract State Machine Concrete Level Observation Objective Abstraction Hierarchy 
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.
    The DisCo project WWWpage (2001), At http://disco.cs.tut.fi on the World Wide Web
  2. 2.
    Aaltonen, T., Helin, J.: Formal basis for testing with joint-action specifications. In: Hierons, R., Jéron, T.(eds) Proceedings of Formal Approaches To Testing 2002 (FATES 2002), A satellite workshop of CONCUR 2002, August 2002, pp. 65–77 (2002) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aaltonen, T., Katara, M., Pitkänen, R.: DisCo toolset – the newgeneration. Journal of Universal Computer Science 7(1), 3–18 (2001), http://www.jucs.org zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aaltonen, T., Kellomäki, P., Pitkänen, R.: Specifying Cash-Point with DisCo. Formal Aspects of Computing 12(4), 231–232 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aaltonen, T., Mikkonen, T.: Managing software evolution with a formalized abstraction hierarchy. In: Martin, D.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS 2002, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA, December 2002, pp. 224–231. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Back, R.J.R., Kurki-Suonio, R.: Distributed cooperation with action systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 10(4), 513–554 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Back, R.J.R., Kurki-Suonio, R.: Decentralization of process nets with centralized control. Distributed Computing 3, 73–87 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergmann, J.P., Horowitz, M.: Improving coverage analysis and test generation for large designs. In: Proceedings of The International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD 1999), November 1999, pp. 580–583 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman, G., Hartman, A., Nagin, K., Shiran, T.: Projected state machine coverage for software testing. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 27(4), 134–143 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grieskamp, W., Gurevich, Y., Schulte, W., Veanes, M.: Generating finite state machines from abstract state machines. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 27(4), 112–122 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lam, S., Shankar, A.: Protocol verification via projections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-10(4), 325–342 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(3), 872–923 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vries, R.G., Tretmans, J.: Towards formal test purposes. In: Brinksma, E., Tretmans, J. (eds.) Proceedings of workshop on Formal Approaches to Testiong of Software 2001, August 2001, pp. 61–76 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Aaltonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Software SystemsTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations