Model-based pairwise testing for feature interaction coverage in software product line engineering
详细信息    查看全文
  • 作者：Malte Lochau (1)
    Sebastian Oster (2)
    Ursula Goltz (1)
    Andy Schürr (2)
  • 关键词：Software product lines ; Model ; based engineering and testing ; Test generation and coverage ; Combinatorial testing ; Feature interaction
  • 刊名：Software Quality Journal
  • 出版年：2012
  • 出版时间：September 2012
  • 年：2012
  • 卷：20
  • 期：3-4
  • 页码：567-604
  • 全文大小：1254KB
  • 参考文献：1. Belli, F., Hollmann, A. (2008). Test generation and minimization with "Basic" statecharts. In: / Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 718-23). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
    2. Bogdanov, K., Holcombe, M., & Singh, H. (1999) Automated test set generation for statecharts. In / Proceedings of the international workshop on current trends in applied formal method (pp. 107-21). London, UK: Springer.
    3. Calder, M., Kolberg, M., Magill, E. H., & Reiff-Marganiec, S. (2003). Feature interaction: A critical review and onsidered forecast. / Computer Networks, 41, 115-41. CrossRef
    4. Cichos, H., Oster, S., Lochau, M., & Schürr, A. (2011). Model-based coverage-driven test suite generation for software product lines. In / Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems. Lecture notes in computer science (LNCS). Heidelberg: Springer. Accepted for publication.
    5. Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2001). / Software product lines: Practices and patterns. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
    6. Cohen, D. M., Dalal, S. R., Kajla, A., & Patton, G. (1994). The automatic efficient tests generator. In / Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on software reliability engineering IEEE, pp. 303-09.
    7. Cohen, M. B., Dwyer, M. B., & Shi, J. (2006). Coverage and adequacy in software product line testing. In / Proceedings of the ISSTA 2006 workshop ROSATEA -6 (pp. 53-3). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
    8. Cohen, M., Dwyer, M., & Shi, J. (2007). Interaction testing of highly-configurable systems in the presence of constraints. In / Proceedings of the international symposium on software testing and analysis, pp. 129-39.
    9. Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., & Stein, C. (2001). / Introduction to algorithms. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
    10. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., & Eisenecker, U. (2005a). Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models. / Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 10, 143-69. CrossRef
    11. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., & Eisenecker, U. (2005b). Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. In / Software process: Improvement and practice, pp. 7-9.
    12. Czarnecki, K., She, S., & Wasowski, A. (2008). Sample spaces and feature models: There and back again. In / SPLC -8 (pp. 22-1). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE CS.
    13. Dziobek, C., & Weiland, J. (2009). Variantenmodellierung und -konfiguration eingebetteter automotive Software mit Simulink. In / MBEES, pp. 36-5.
    14. Ferber, S., Haag, J., & Savolainen, J. (2002). Feature interaction and dependencies: Modeling features for reengineering a legacy product line. In / Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software product lines (pp. 235-56). London, UK: Springer.
    15. Gonzalez, A., & Luna, C. (2008). Behavior specification of product lines via feature models and UML statecharts with variabilities. In / Proceedings of the international conference of the chilean computer science society (pp. 32-1). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
    16. Gr?nniger, H., Krahn, H., Pinkernell, C., & Rumpe, B. (2008). Modeling variants of automotive systems using views. In / Modellierung.
    17. Harel, D. (1987). Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. / Science of Computer Programming, 8, 231-74. CrossRef
    18. Harel, D., & Naamad, A. (1996). The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. / ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5, 293-33. CrossRef
    19. Hartmann, J., Vieira, M., & Ruder, A. (2004). A UML-based approach for validating product lines. In: B. Geppert, C. Krueger, & J. Li (Eds.). / Proceedings of the international workshop on software product line testing, pp 58-5.
    20. Heymans, P., Schobbens, P. Y., Trigaux, J. C., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., & Classen, A. (2008). Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. / Software, IET, 2, 281-02. CrossRef
    21. Hong, H. S., Kim, Y. G., Cha, S. D., Bae, D. H., & Ural, H. (2000). A test sequence selection method for statecharts. / Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 10, 203-27. CrossRef
    22. Juarez-Dominguez, A. L., Day, N. A., & Joyce, J. J. (2008). Modelling feature interactions in the automotive domain. In / Proceedings of the international workshop on models in software engineering. MiSE -8 (pp. 45-0). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
    23. Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E., & Peterson, A. S. (1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report, CMU Software Engineering Institute.
    24. Kishi, T., & Noda, N. (2004). Design testing for product line development based on test scenarios. In B. Geppert, C. Krueger, & J. Li (Eds.). / Proceedings of the international workshop on software product line testing, pp. 19-6.
    25. Kolb, R., & Muthig, D. (2003). Challenges in testing software product lines. In / Proceedings of conference on quality engineering in software technology, pp. 81-5.
    26. Lei, Y., & Tai, K. (1998). In-parameter-order: A test generation strategy for pairwise testing. In / IEEE high assurance systems engineering symposium, pp. 254-61.
    27. Lochau, M., & Goltz, U. (2010). Feature interaction aware test case generation for embedded control systems. In / Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on model-based testing.
    28. Masiero, P., Maldonado, J., & Boaventura, I. (1994). A reachability tree for statecharts and analysis of some properties. / Information and Software Technology, 36, 615-24. CrossRef
    29. McGregor, J. D. (2001). Testing a software product line. Technical report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-022, Software Engineering Institute.
    30. Metzger, A. (2004). Feature interactions in embedded control systems. / Computer Networks, 45, 625-44. CrossRef
    31. Metzger, A., Bhne, S., Lauenroth, K., & Pohl, K. (2005). Considering feature interactions in product lines: Towards the automatic derivation of dependencies between product variants. In S. Reiff-Marganiec & M. Ryan (Eds.). / Feature interactions in telecommunications and software systems VIII (pp. 198-16). Leicester, UK: IOS Press.
    32. Metzger, A., Pohl, K., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P. Y., & Saval, G. (2007). Disambiguating the documentation of variability in software product lines: A separation of concerns, formalization and automated analysis. In / Proceedings of the international requirements engineering conference, pp. 243-53.
    33. Müller, T., Lochau, M., Detering, S., Saust, F., Garbers, H., M?rtin, L., et?al. (2009). A comprehensive Descr. of a model-based, continuous develop. Process for AUTOSAR systems with integrated quality assurance. Technical report 06, TU BS.
    34. Olimpiew, E. M. (2008). Model-based testing for software product lines. PhD thesis, George Mason University.
    35. OMG. (2009). UML, Version 2.2. OMG Specification superstructure and infrastructure. http://www.omg.org.
    36. Oster, S., Markert, F., & Ritter, P. (2010). Automated incremental pairwise testing of software product lines. In: / Proceedings of the international software product line conference, pp. 196-10.
    37. Oster, S., Markert, F., & Schürr, A. (2009). Integrated modeling of software product lines with feature models and classification trees. In / Proceedings of the international software product line conference. MAPLE 2009 Ws, Springer.
    38. Oster, S., Wübbeke, A., Engels, G., & Schürr, A. (2010). Model-based software product lines testing survey. In J. Zander, I. Schieferdecker, & P. Mosterman (Eds.). / Model-based testing for embedded systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, to appear.
    39. Oster, S., Zorcic, I., Markert, F., & Lochau, M. (2011). MoSo-PoLiTe—tool support for pairwise and model-based software product line testing. In K. Czarnecki & U. Eisenecker (Eds.). / 5th International workshop on variability modelling of software-intensive systems, Namur, Belgium. ACM international conference proceedings series (pp. 79-2). New York: ACM Press.
    40. Perrouin, G., Sen, S., Klein, J., Baudry, B., & Traon, Y. L. (2010). Automated and scalable T-wise test case generation strategies for software product lines. In / Third international conference on software testing, verification and validation, pp. 459-68.
    41. Pohl, K., B?ckle, G., & Linden, F. J. V. D. (2005). / Software product line engineering: Foundations, principles and techniques. New York: Springer.
    42. Pretschner, A., & Philipps, J. (2004). Methodological issues in model-based testing. In / Model-based testing of reactive systems, pp. 281-91.
    43. Reuys, A., Kamsties, E., Pohl, K., & Reis, S. (2005). Model-based system testing of software product families. In / CAiSE, pp. 519-34.
    44. Robinson, H. (2000). Intelligent test automation. / Software Testing and Quality Engineering, 5, 24-2.
    45. Scheidemann, K. (2007). Verifying families of system configurations. PhD thesis, Technical University of Munich.
    46. Souza, S., Maldonado, J., Fabbri, S., & Masiero, P. (2000). Statecharts specifications: A family of coverage testing criteria. In / Proceedings of the Latin-American conference of informatics, pp 167-85.
    47. Stevens, B., & Mendelsohn, E. (1998). Efficient software testing protocols. In / Conference of the centre for advanced studies on collaborative research (pp. 22-7). IBM Press.
    48. Szasz, N., & Vilanova, P. (2008). Statecharts and variabilities. In / Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on variability modelling of software-intensive systems, pp. 131-40.
    49. Tevanlinna, A., Taina, J., & Kauppinen, R. (2004). Product family testing: A survey. / ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29, 12-8 CrossRef
    50. Utting, M., & Legeard, B. (2007). Practical model-based testing. A tools approach. Morgan Kaufmann.
    51. van Glabbeek, R. J., & Goltz, U. (2001). Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. / Acta Informatica, 37, 229-27. CrossRef
    52. von der Beeck, M. (1994). A comparison of statecharts variants. In: / Formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems, pp. 128-48.
    53. Wei?leder, S., Sokenou, D., & Schlingloff, H. (2008). Reusing state machines for automatic test generation in product lines. In / Proceedings of the 1st workshop on model-based testing in practice (MoTiP2008).
    54. White, J., Dougherty, B., & Schmidt, D. C. (2009). Selecting highly optimal architect. Feature sets with filtered cartesian flattening. / Journal of Systems and Software, 82, 1268-284. CrossRef
  • 作者单位：Malte Lochau (1)
    Sebastian Oster (2)
    Ursula Goltz (1)
    Andy Schürr (2)

    1. Institute for Programming and Reactive Systems, TU Braunschweig, Germany
    2. Real-Time Systems Group, TU Darmstadt, Germany
  • ISSN：1573-1367
文摘
Testing software product lines (SPLs) is very challenging due to a high degree of variability leading to an enormous number of possible products. The vast majority of today’s testing approaches for SPLs validate products individually using different kinds of reuse techniques for testing. Because of their reusability and adaptability capabilities, model-based approaches are suitable to describe variability and are therefore frequently used for implementation and testing purposes of SPLs. Due to the enormous number of possible products, individual product testing becomes more and more infeasible. Pairwise testing offers one possibility to test a subset of all possible products. However, according to the best of our knowledge, there is no contribution discussing and rating this approach in the SPL context. In this contribution, we provide a mapping between feature models describing the common and variable parts of an SPL and a reusable test model in the form of statecharts. Thereby, we interrelate feature model-based coverage criteria and test model-based coverage criteria such as control and data flow coverage and are therefore able to discuss the potentials and limitations of pairwise testing. We pay particular attention to test requirements for feature interactions constituting a major challenge in SPL engineering. We give a concise definition of feature dependencies and feature interactions from a testing point of view, and we discuss adequacy criteria for SPL coverage under pairwise feature interaction testing and give a generalization to the T-wise case. The concept and implementation of our approach are evaluated by means of a case study from the automotive domain.

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083

电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700