Fault-Based Generation of Test Cases from UML-Models – Approach and Some Experiences

  • Rupert Schlick
  • Wolfgang Herzner
  • Elisabeth Jöbstl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6894)


In principle, automated test case generation – both from source code and models – is a fairly evolved technology, which is on the way to common use in industrial testing and quality assessment of safety-related, software-intensive systems. However, common coverage measures such as branch or MC/DC for source code and states or transitions for state-based models provide only very limited information about the covered (implementation) faults. Fault-based test case generation tries to improve this situation by looking for detecting faults explicitly. This paper describes an approach combining fault- and model-based testing which has been realized in the European project MOGENTES, using UML state machines for representing requirements, and discusses results of its application to a use case from the automotive domain.


model-based test case generation fault models MOGENTES UML action systems mutation testing ioco (input/output conformance) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aichernig, B.K., Brandl, H., Jöbstl, E., Krenn, W.: Efficient Mutation Killers in Action. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST (March 2011) (in press)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aichernig, B.K., Krenn, W.: Model-Based Generation of Test-Cases (for Embedded Systems) – State of the Art Survey. Deliverable 1.2 of EU FP7 project MOGENTES,
  3. 3.
    Aichernig, B.K., He, J.: Mutation testing in UTP. Journal of Formal Aspects of Computing 21(1-2) (February 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aichernig, B.K., Peischl, B., Weiglhofer, M., Wotawa, F.: Protocol conformance testing a SIP registrar: An industrial application of formal methods. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 215–224. IEEE, London (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Back, R.J.R., Kurki-Suonio, F.: Distributed cooperation with action systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 10(4), 513–554 (1988) ISSN 0164-0925CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonsangue, M.M., Kok, J.N., Sere, K.: An approach to object-orientation in action systems. In: Jeuring, J. (ed.) MPC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1422, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandl, H., Weiglhofer, M., Aichernig, B.K.: Automated Conformance Verification of Hybrid Systems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 10th International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC 2010), pp. 3–12. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010) ISBN 978-0-7695-4131-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briand, L.C., Di Penta, M., Labiche, Y.: Assessing and improving state-based class testing: a series of experiments. IIEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30, 770–783 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaki, S., Clarke, S., Groce, A., Jha, S., Veith, H.: Formal Verification of Software Components in C. Trans. of SW Engineering 30(6), 388–402 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fabbri, S.C.P.F., Maldonado, J.C., Sugeta, T., Masiero, P.C.: Mutation testing applied to validate specifications based on statecharts. In: Proceedings 10th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (Cat. No.PR00443), Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. S.210–219 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fröhlich, P., Link, J.: Automated test case generation from dynamic models. In: Hwang, J. (ed.) ECOOP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1850, pp. 472–492. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Massink, M., Moruzzi, V., Pisa, I.: Formal test-case generation for uml statecharts. In: Proc. 9th IEEE Int. Conf. on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems 2004, pp. 75–84 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jia, Y., Harman, M.: An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering PP(99), 1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myers, G.J., Sandler, C.: The Art of Software Testing. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2004) ISBN 0471469122Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oster, N., Saglietti, F.: Automatic test data generation by multi-objective optimisation. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 426–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) ISBN 3-540-45762-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seifert, D., Helke, S., Santen, T.: Test Case Generation for UML Statecharts. In: Broy, M., Zamulin, A.V. (eds.) PSI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2890, pp. 462–468. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shao, Z.: Certified Software. Comm. ACM 53(12), 56–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tretmans, J.: Test generation with inputs, outputs, and quiescence. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1055, pp. 127–146. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Walter, D., Täubig, H., Lüth, C.: Experiences in applying formal verification in robotics. In: Schoitsch, E. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6351, pp. 347–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weißleder, S., Schlingloff, B.H.: Deriving input partitions from UML models for automatic test generation. In: Giese, H. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5002, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, Q., Ma, D., Zhao, Y., Li, Z.: Towards a Formal Verification Approach for Implementation of Web Services Specifications. In: Proc. of 2010 IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conf., pp. 269–276 (December 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rupert Schlick
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Herzner
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Jöbstl
    • 2
  1. 1.Safety & Security DepartmentAIT Austrian Institute of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute for Software TechnologyGraz Univ. of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations