Testing Product Generation in Software Product Lines Using Pairwise for Features Coverage

  • Beatriz Pérez Lamancha
  • Macario Polo Usaola
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6435)


A Software Product Lines (SPL) is "a set of software-intensive systems sharing a common, managed set of features that satisfy the specific needs of a particular market segment or mission and that are developed from a common set of core assets in a prescribed way". Variability is a central concept that permits the generation of different products of the family by reusing core assets. It is captured through features which, for a SPL, define its scope. Features are represented in a feature model, which is later used to generate the products from the line. From the testing point of view, testing all the possible combinations in feature models is not practical because: (1) the number of possible combinations (i.e., combinations of features for composing products) may be untreatable, and (2) some combinations may contain incompatible features. Thus, this paper resolves the problem by the implementation of combinatorial testing techniques adapted to the SPL context.


testing software product lines combinatorial testing feature overage pairwise 


  1. 1.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines - Practices and Patterns. Addison Wesley, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perez Lamancha, B., Polo, M., Piattini, M.: An automated model-driven testing framework for Model-Driven Development and Software Product Lines. In: 5th Inter. Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (2010) (to be published) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Van Der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Berlin (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, D.M., et al.: The combinatorial design approach to automatic test generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 13(5), 83–89 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryce, R., Lei, Y., Kuhn, D., Kacker, R.: Combinatorial testing. In: Software Engineering and Productivity Technologies, pp. 196–208 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griss, M.: Implementing product-line features by composing component aspects. In: Software Product Line Conference, pp. 222–228 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Spencer, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. SEI Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang, K., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Kim, G., Shin, E.: FORM: A feature oriented reuse method with domain specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5(1), 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griss, M., Favaro, J., d’Alessandro, M.: Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB. In: Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, p. 76 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pérez Lamancha, B., Polo Usaola, M., Piattini, M.: Towards an Automated Testing Framework to Manage Variability Using the UML Testing Profile. In: 4th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test, pp. 10–17 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benavides, F., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Feature Model to Orthogonal Variability Model Transformations. A First Step. Actas de los Talleres de las Jornadas de Ing. del Software y BBDD 3(2), 81–90 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grindal, M., Offutt, J., Andler, S.: Combination testing strategies: A survey. Software Testing Verification and Reliability 15(3), 167–200 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mandl, R.: Orthogonal Latin squares: an application of experiment design to compiler testing. Communications of the ACM 28(10), 1058 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams, A.: Determination of test configurations for pair-wise interaction coverage. In: 13th International Conference on Testing Communicating Systems, pp. 59–74 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perrouin, G., et al.: Automated and Scalable T-wise Test Case Generation Strategies for Software Product Lines. In: Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 10–17 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGregor, J.D.: Testing a Software Product Line. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute. Technical report (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, M., Dwyer, M., Shi, J.: Coverage and adequacy in software product line testing. In: ISSTA workshop on Role of software architecture for testing and analysis, pp. 53–63 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thum, T., Batory, D., Kastner, C.: Reasoning about edits to feature models. In: 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Pérez Lamancha
    • 1
  • Macario Polo Usaola
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Testing CentreRepublic UniversityMontevideoUruguay
  2. 2.Alarcos Research GroupUCLM, Ciudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations