Testing Scenario-Based Models

  • Hillel Kugler
  • Michael J. Stern
  • E. Jane Albert Hubbard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4422)


The play-in/play-out approach suggests a new paradigm for system development using scenario-based requirements. It allows the user to develop a high level scenario-based model of the system and directly execute system behavior. The supporting tool, the Play-Engine has been used successfully in several projects and case-studies. As systems developed using this method grow in size and complexity, an important challenge is maintaining models that are well understood in terms of their behaviors and that satisfy the original intension of the system developers. Scenario-based methods are advantageous in early stages of system development since behaviors can be described in isolated fragments. A trade-off for this advantage, however, is that larger models comprising many separate scenarios can result in executable behavior that is difficult to understand and maintain. A methodology for facile testing of scenario-based requirements is needed. Here, we describe a methodology and supporting prototype implementation integrated into the Play-Engine for testing of scenario-based requirements. We have effectively applied the method for testing a complex model containing several hundred scenarios.


  1. 1.
    Amyot, D., Eberlein, A.: An Evaluation of Scenario Notations and Construction Approaches for Telecommunication Systems Development. Telecommunications Systems Journal 24(1), 61–94 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnett, M., Grieskamp, W., Gurevich, Y., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., Veanes, M.: Scenario-Oriented Modeling in AsmL and its Instrumentation for Testing. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines, SCESM’03 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett, M., Grieskamp, W., Nachmanson, L., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., Veanes, M.: Towards a Tool Environment for Model-Based Testing with AsmL. In: Petrenko, A., Ulrich, A. (eds.) FATES 2003. LNCS, vol. 2931, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Combes, P., Harel, D., Kugler, H.-J.: Modeling and Verification of a Telecommunication Application Using Live Sequence Charts and the Play-Engine Tool. In: Peled, D.A., Tsay, Y.-K. (eds.) ATVA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3707, pp. 414–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing life into message sequence charts. Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001), Preliminary version appeared in Proc. 3rd IFIP Int. Conf. on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS’99)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ebner, M.: TTCN-3 Test Case Generation from Message Sequence Charts. In: Workshop on Integrated-reliability with Telecommunications and UML Languages, ISSRE04:WITUL (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geiger, L., Zündorf, A.: Story driven testing - SDT. In: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on Scenarios and state machines: models, algorithms and tools (SCESM ’05), pp. 1–6. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H., Marelly, R., Pnueli, A.: Smart play-out of behavioral requirements. In: Aagaard, M.D., O’Leary, J.W. (eds.) FMCAD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2517, pp. 378–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2002), Also available as Tech. Report MCS02-08, The Weizmann Institute of Science.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H.-J., Weiss, G.: Some Methodological Observations Resulting from Experience Using LSCs and the Play-In/Play-Out Approach. In: Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.) Scenarios: Models, Transformations and Tools. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 26–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Playing with time: On the specification and execution of time-enriched LSCs. In: Proc. 10th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS’02), Fort Worth, Texas (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Specifying and Executing Behavioral Requirements: The Play In/Play-Out Approach. Software and System Modeling (SoSyM) 2(2), 82–107 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartman, A., Nagin, K.: The AGEDIS tools for model based testing. In: Grossman, R.L., Nerode, A., Ravn, A., Rischel, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis (ISSTA ’04), pp. 129–132. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rhapsody (2006),
  15. 15.
    Kam, N.: Formal Modeling of C. elegans Vulval Development: A Scenario-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Weizmann Institute (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kam, N., Harel, D., Kugler, H.-J., Marelly, R., Pnueli, A., Hubbard, E.J.A., Stern, M.J.: Formal Modeling of C. elegans Development: A Scenario-Based Approach. In: Priami, C. (ed.) CMSB 2003. LNCS, vol. 2602, pp. 4–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2003), Extended version appeared in: Ciobanu, G. (ed.) Modeling in Molecular Biology, Natural Computing Series, Springer, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kam, N., Kugler, H., Appleby, L., Pnueli, A., Harel, D., Stern, M.J., Hubbard, E.J.A.: Hypothesis Testing and Biological Insights from Scenario-Based Modeling of Development. Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lettrari, M., Klose, J.: Scenario-Based Monitoring and Testing of Real-Time UML Models. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, p. 317. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.): Scenarios: Models, Transformations and Tools. LNCS, vol. 3466. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marelly, R., Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Multiple instances and symbolic variables in executable sequence charts. In: Proc. 17th Ann. ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA’02), Seattle, WA, pp. 83–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMEGA - Correct Development of Real-Time Embedded Systems,
  22. 22.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Incremental elaboration of scenario-based specifications and behavior models using implied scenarios. ACM Trans. Software Engin. Methods 13(1), 37–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    UML. Documentation of the unified modeling language, UML UML (2006) Available from the Object Management Group (OMG)
  24. 24.
    Z.120 ITU-TS Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Chart (MSC). ITU-TS, Geneva (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hillel Kugler
    • 1
  • Michael J. Stern
    • 2
  • E. Jane Albert Hubbard
    • 1
  1. 1.New York University, New York, NYUSA
  2. 2.Yale University, New Haven, CTUSA

Personalised recommendations