Advertisement

Lutess: a testing environment for synchronous software

  • L. du Bousquet
  • F. Ouabdesselam
  • I. Parissis
  • J.-L. Richier
  • N. Zuanon
Part of the Advances in Computing Science book series (ACS)

Abstract

Testing receives an increasing attention from research teams working on formal techniques for software specification, development and verification, for two reasons. First, testing appears to be the only means to perform the validation of a piece of software, when formal verification is impracticable because of lacks of memory and/or time. Second, testing brings a practical solution to the specifications themselves. It can help one get confidence in the consistency and relevance of the specifications. It can also reveal discrepancies between the specifications and the specifier’s intentions.

Keywords

Boolean Function Behavioral Pattern Environment Constraint Formal Verification Operational Profile 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S.B. Akers. Binary Decision Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C27:509–516, june 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bicarregui, J. Dick, B. Matthews, and E. Woods. Making the most of formal specification through animation, testing and proof. Science of computer programming, 29(1–2), july 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Caspi, N. Halbwachs, D. Pilaud, and J. Plaice. LUSTRE, a declarative language for programming synchronous systems. In 14th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 87), Munich, pages 178–188. ACM, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. du Bousquet, F. Ouabdesselam, and J.-L. Richier. Expressing and implementing operational profiles for reactive software validation. In 9th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Paderborn, Germany, november 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. du Bousquet, F. Ouabdesselam, J.-L. Richier, and N. Zuanon. Incremental feature validation: a synchronous point of view. In Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems V. IOS Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N.D. Griffeth, R. Blumenthal, J.-C. Gregoire, and T. Otha. Feature interaction detection contest. In K. Kimble and L.G. Bouma, editors, Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems V, pages 327–359. IOS Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Halbwachs, F. Lagnier, and P. Raymond. Synchronous Observers and the Verification of Reactive Systems. In M. Nivat, C. Rattray, T. Rus, and G. Scollo, editors, Third Int. Conf. on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, AMAST’93, Twente. Workshops in Computing, Springer Verlag, june 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Hamlet and R. Taylor. Partition Analysis Does Not Inspire Confidence. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, pages 1402–1411, december 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Ouabdesselam and I. Parissis. Testing Synchronous Critical Software. In 5th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Monterey, USA, november 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Ouabdesselam and I. Parissis. Constructing operational profiles for synchronous critical software. In 6th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pages 286–293, Toulouse, France, october 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Ouabdesselam, J.-L. Richier, and N. Zuanon. Using behavioral patterns for guiding the test of service specification. technical report PFL, IMAG - LSR, Grenoble, France, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Parissis and F. Ouabdesselam. Specification-based Testing of Synchronous Software. In 4th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundation of Software Engineering, San Francisco, USA, october 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ioannis Parissis. Test de logiciels synchrones spécifiés en Lustre. PhD thesis, Grenoble, France, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Ramadge and W. Wonham. Supervisory Control of a Class of Discrete Event Processes. SIAM J. CONTROL AND OPTIMIZATION,25(1):206–230, january 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Whittaker. Markov chain techniques for software testing and reliability analysis. Thesis, University of Tenessee, May 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. du Bousquet
  • F. Ouabdesselam
  • I. Parissis
  • J.-L. Richier
  • N. Zuanon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations