A COM-Based Customization Testing Technique

  • Hoijin Yoon
  • Eunhee Kim
  • Byoungju Choi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3026)


Component users must customize components they obtain from providers, because providers usually develop components either for general use, or for some other specific purpose. Although the customization is accomplished by modifying the interface of a component, faults caused by customization appear when the implementation part of a component and the interfaces interact. In this paper, we select test cases by inserting faults not into the entire interface but only into specific parts of the interface, which are referred directly by the implementation. They are selected by analyzing the interaction between the interface and the implementation parts. Based on this testing approach, this paper develops a testing technique for a customized COM component. It is applied to a practical component-based system, Chamois. Through an empirical study in this paper, it is shown that the specific parts for injecting a fault brings the test cases’ effectiveness, which is evaluated.


Fault Injection Component Architecture Component User Test Case Selection Implementation Part 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weyuker, E.J.: Testing Component-Based Software: A Cautionary Tale. IEEE Software, 54–59 (September/October 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harrold, M.J., Liang, D., Sinha, S.: An Approach To Analyzing and Testing Component-Based Systems. In: Proceeding of the First International ICSE Workshop on Testing Distributed Component-Based Systems, Los Angeles, CA (May 1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yoon, H., Choi, B.: Component Customization Testing Technique Using Fault Injection Technique and Mutation Test Criteria. In: Proceeding of Mutation 2000, San Jose, USA, October 2000, pp. 71–78 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoon, H., Choi, B.: Inter-Class Test Technique between Black-box-class and White-box-class for Component Customization Failures. In: Proceeding of APSEC 1999, Takamatsu, Japan, pp. 162–165 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voas, J.M.: Certifying Off-the-Shelf Software Components. IEEE Computer 31(6), 53–59 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrold, M.J., Orso, A., Rosenblum, D., Rothermel, G.: Using Component Metadata to Support the Regression Testing of Component-Based Software. Technical Report GIT-CC-01-38, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delamaro, M.E., Maldonado, J.C., Mathur, A.P.: Interface Mutation: An Approach for Integration Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(3), 228–247 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghosh, S.: Testing Component-Based Distributed Applications. Ph. D Dissertation, Department of Computer Science in Purdue University (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Object, Components, and Frameworks with UML. Addison-Wesley, London (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Component Object Model,
  11. 11.
    DeMillo, R.A., Lipton, R.J., Sayward, F.G.: Hints on Test Data Selection: Help for the Practicing Programmer. IEEE Computer 11(4), 34–41 (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, W., Chae, K.-J., Cho, D.-S., Choi, B., Jeong, A., Kim, M., Lee, K., Lee, M., Lee, S.-H., Park, S.-S., Yong, H.-S.: The Chamois Component-based Knowledge Engineering Framework. IEEE Computer Journal (Mau 2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, W., Choi, B., Hong, E.-K., Kim, S.-K., Lee, D.: A Taxonomy of Dirty Data. The Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Journal 7(1), 81–99 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, W.E., Horgan, J.R., Mathur, A.P., Pasquini, A.: Test Set Size Minimization and Fault Detection Effectiveness: A Case Study in a Space Application. In: Proceeding of COMPSAC 1997, Washington D.C., USA, pp. 522–529 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mathur, A.P., Wong, W.E.: Comparing the Fault Detection Effectiveness of Mutation and Data Flow Testing: An Empirical Study. SERC-TR-146-P, Purdue University (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoon, H., Choi, B.: Effective Test Case Selection for Component Customization and Its Application to EJB. The Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability Journal 14(2) (June 2004) (to appear)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hoijin Yoon
    • 1
  • Eunhee Kim
    • 1
  • Byoungju Choi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringEwha Women’s UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations