A strongly polynomial minimum cost circulation algorithm
Combinatorica
STOC '91 Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Formal methods for test sequence generation
Computer Communications
Art of Software Testing
Testing Equivalence for Processes
Proceedings of the 10th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
Formal Test Automation: A Simple Experiment
Proceedings of the IFIP TC6 12th International Workshop on Testing Communicating Systems: Method and Applications
The Art of Software Testing
Optimal strategies for testing nondeterministic systems
ISSTA '04 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) - Special section on high-level test of complex systems
A theory of predicate-complete test coverage and generation
FMCO'04 Proceedings of the Third international conference on Formal Methods for Components and Objects
A test generation framework for quiescent real-time systems
FATES'04 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Formal Approaches to Software Testing
How did you specify your test suite
Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering
FMICS'11 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Formal methods for industrial critical systems
Reducing test effort: A systematic mapping study on existing approaches
Information and Software Technology
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Since testing is inherently incomplete, test selection has vital importance. Coverage measures evaluate the quality of a test suite and help the tester select test cases with maximal impact at minimum cost. Existing coverage criteria for test suites are usually defined in terms of syntactic characteristics of the implementation under test or its specification. Typical black-box coverage metrics are state and transition coverage of the specification. White-box testing often considers statement, condition and path coverage. A disadvantage of this syntactic approach is that different coverage figures are assigned to systems that are behaviorally equivalent, but syntactically different. Moreover, those coverage metrics do not take into account that certain failures are more severe than others, and that more testing effort should be devoted to uncover the most important bugs, while less critical system parts can be tested less thoroughly. This paper introduces a semantic approach to black box test coverage. Our starting point is a weighted fault model (or WFM), which augments a specification by assigning a weight to each error that may occur in an implementation. We define a framework to express coverage measures that express how well a test suite covers such a specification, taking into account the error weight. Since our notions are semantic, they are insensitive to replacing a specification by one with equivalent behaviour. We present several algorithms that, given a certain minimality criterion, compute a minimal test suite with maximal coverage. These algorithms work on a syntactic representation of WFMs as fault automata. They are based on existing and novel optimization problems. Finally, we illustrate our approach by analyzing and comparing a number of test suites for a chat protocol.