Model-Based Testing and the UML Testing Profile

  • Padmanabhan Krishnan
  • Percy Pari-Salas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5700)


The UML Testing Profile (U2TP) provides a means of using UML for test case specification. In this work we show how the concepts of model-based testing can be mapped to U2TP at the conceptual level. We discuss structural as well as behavioural issues that allow certain aspects of model-based testing to be considered an instance of U2TP. This is achieved without insisting that model-based testing should use UML. We show how the process of using model-based testing including test case design, test generation and test execution using a tool can be captured as an instance of U2TP. The aim of this exercise is to show that model-based testing can be adopted as part of the U2TP framework, and that one does not need a different framework to adopt model-based testing in practice.


Test Component System Under Test Generate Test Case Code Fragment Implementation Level 
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.
    Mosses, P.D.: Action Semantics. Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. (26). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sitaraman, M., Atkinson, S., Kulczycki, G., Weide, B.W., Long, T.J., Bucci, P., Heym, W.D., Pike, S.M., Hollingsworth, J.E.: Reasoning about software-component behavior. In: Frakes, W.B. (ed.) ICSR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1844, pp. 266–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muccini, H., Dias, M.S., Richardson, D.J.: Towards software architecture-based regression testing. In: WADS 2005: Proceedings of the workshop on Architecting dependable systems, pp. 1–7. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(1), 70–93 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG: Uml 2.0 testing profile (2005),
  6. 6.
    Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malik, P., Utting, M.: CZT: A framework for Z tools. In: Treharne, H., King, S., Henson, M.C., Schneider, S. (eds.) ZB 2005. LNCS, vol. 3455, pp. 65–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gargantini, A.: Conformance testing. In: Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J.-P., Leucker, M., Pretschner, A. (eds.) Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems. LNCS, vol. 3472, pp. 87–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aichernig, B.K.: Mutation Testing in the Refinement Calculus. Formal Aspects of Computing 15(2-3), 280–295 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neto, A.D., Subramanyan, R., Vieira, M., Travassos, G.H., Shull, F.: Improving evidence about software technologies: A look at model-based testing. IEEE Software 25(3), 10–13 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tretmans, J., Brinksma, E.: TorX: Automated model based testing. In: First European Conference on Model-Driven Software Engineering, Nuremberg, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jard, C., Jéron, T.: TGV: theory, principles and algorithms: A tool for the automatic synthesis of conformance test cases for non-deterministic reactive systems. J. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 7(4), 297–315 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campbell, C., Grieskamp, W., Nachmanson, L., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., Veanes, M.: Model-based testing of object-oriented reactive systems with Spec Explorer. Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-59, Microsoft Research (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Utting, M., Pretschner, A., Legeard, B.: A taxonomy of model-based testing. Technical Report 04/2006, Department of Computer Science, The University of Waikato, New Zealand (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen, D.M., Dalal, S.R., Fredman, M.L., Patton, G.C.: The AETG system: an approach to testing based on combinatorial design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(7), 437–444 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dai, Z.R.: Model-driven testing with UML 2.0. In: EWMDA: European Workshop on Model Driven Architecture, pp. 179–187 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buwalda, H.: Action figures. In: Software Testing and Quality Engineering, pp. 42–47 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Padmanabhan Krishnan
    • 1
  • Percy Pari-Salas
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Software Assurance School of Information TechnologyBond University, Gold CoastQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations