Optimal String Edit Distance Based Test Suite Reduction for SDL Specifications

  • Gábor Kovács
  • Gábor Árpád Németh
  • Mahadevan Subramaniam
  • Zoltán Pap
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5719)


We propose a test selection method that provides efficient test sets for systems based on SDL specifications. Our approach builds on previous results of Voung et al. and Feijs et al. on string edit distance based coverage metrics. The method reduces a set of test cases represented in the MSC (Message Sequence Chart) notation, while maintaining the highest possible distance between all pairs of traces defined by the given test set. The algorithm is tunable by a parameter representing the threshold distance for test redundancy. We show that the algorithm runs in polynomial time of the size of the input test set and that it is independent of the size of the system. We implemented and incorporated the algorithm into our SDL-based test selection framework, and evaluated against existing symbol coverage and fault coverage based test selection approaches by conducting experiments on the well-known INRES and Conference Protocol. Results indicate that the string edit distance based method yields similar results in terms of reduction-capability and coverage as the other approaches, but with significantly less complexity.


SDL based test selection string edit distance MSC test cases 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lee, D., Yiannakakis, M.: Principles and methods of testing finite state machines – a survey. Proceedings of the IEEE 43(3), 1090–1123 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kovács, G., Pap, Z., Le, V.D., Wu-Hen-Chang, A., Csopaki, G.: Applying mutation analysis to SDL specifications. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2708, pp. 269–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wong, W.E., Restrepo, A., Qi, Y., Choi, B.: An EFSM-based test generation for validation of SDL specifications. In: AST 2008: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Automation of software test, pp. 25–32. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmitt, M., Grabowski, J., Hogrefe, D., Koch, B.: Autolink – a tool for the automatic and semi-automatic test generation. In: Wolisz, A., Schieferdecker, I., Rennoch, A. (eds.) Formale Beschreibungstechniken für verteilte Systeme, Nr. 315, GMD-Studien. GMD-Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tretmans, G., Brinksma, H.: Torx: Automated model-based testing. In: Hartman, A., Dussa-Ziegler, K. (eds.) First European Conference on Model-Driven Software Engineering, pp. 31–43 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jard, C., Jeron, T.: TGV: Theory, principles and algorithms. In: 6th World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, IDPT 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heerink, L., Feenstra, J., Tretmans, J.: Formal test automation: The conference protocol with phact. In: Ural, H., Probert, R.L., von Bochmann, G. (eds.) 13th IFIP International Conference on Testing of Communicating Systems (TestCom 2000), pp. 211–220. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrold, M., Gupta, R., Soffa, M.: A methodology for controlling the size of a test suite. Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2(3), 270–285 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vuong, S.T., Alilovic-Curgus, J.: On test coverage metrics for communication protocols. In: von Bochmann, G., Dssouli, R., Das, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Fourth International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems IV, pp. 31–45. North Holland, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Csöndes, T., Kotnyek, B., Szabó, J.: Application of heuristic methods for conformance test selection. European Journal of Operational Research 142(1), 203–218 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, A., Probert, R.: Formulation of the interaction test coverage problem as an integer program. In: Schieferdecker, I., König, H., Wolisz, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP 14th international Conference on Testing Communicating Systems XIV. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 210, pp. 283–298. Kluwer, B.V., Deventer (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feijs, L., Goga, N., Mauw, S., Tretmans, J.: Test selection, trace distance and heuristics. In: Schieferdecker, I., König, H., Wolisz, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP 14th international Conference on Testing Communicating Systems XIV. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 210, pp. 267–282. Kluwer, B.V., Deventer (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ellsberger, J., Hogrefe, D., Sarma, A.: SDL Formal Object-oriented Language for Communicating Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Telecommunications Union: Recommendation Z.100 (11/07), Specification and Description Language (SDL),
  15. 15.
    Wagner, R., Fischer, M.: The string-to-string correction problem. Journal of the ACM 21(1), 168–173 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edn. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dell’Amico, M., Martello, S.: The k-cardinality assignment problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 76(1), 103–121 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gábor Kovács
    • 1
  • Gábor Árpád Németh
    • 1
  • Mahadevan Subramaniam
    • 2
  • Zoltán Pap
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Telecommunications and Media Informatics – ETIKBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA
  3. 3.Ericsson Telecomm. HungaryBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations