skip to main content
10.1145/2866614.2866627acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvamosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Search-based Similarity-driven Behavioural SPL Testing

Published:27 January 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Dissimilar test cases have been proven to be effective to reveal faults in software systems. In the Software Product Line (SPL) context, this criterion has been applied successfully to mimic combinatorial interaction testing in an efficient and scalable manner by selecting and prioritising most dissimilar configurations of feature models using evolutionary algorithms. In this paper, we extend dissimilarity to behavioural SPL models (FTS) in a search-based approach, and evaluate its effectiveness in terms of product and fault coverage. We investigate different distances as well as as single-objective algorithms, (dissimilarity on actions, random, all-actions). Our results on four case studies show the relevance of dissimilarity-based test generation for behavioural SPL models, especially on the largest case-study where no other approach can match it.

References

  1. M. Al-Hajjaji, T. Thüm, J. Meinicke, M. Lochau, and G. Saake. Similarity-based Prioritization in Software Product-line Testing. In SPLC - Vol. 1, pages 197--206, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. H. Andrews, L. C. Briand, Y. Labiche, and A. S. Namin. Using Mutation Analysis for Assessing and Comparing Testing Coverage Criteria. IEEE TSE, 32:608--624, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. H. Beohar and M. R. Mousavi. Input-output Conformance Testing Based on Featured Transition Systems. In SAC, pages 1272--1278, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Brockhoff, T. Friedrich, and F. Neumann. Analyzing hypervolume indicator based algorithms. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature -- PPSN X, pages 651--660. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. G. Cartaxo, P. D. L. Machado, and F. G. O. Neto. On the use of a similarity function for test case selection in the context of model-based testing. STVR, 21(2):75--100, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. T. Y. Chen, F.-C. Kuo, R. G. Merkel, and T. Tse. Adaptive Random Testing: The ART of test case diversity. JSS, 83:60--66, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Classen. Modelling with FTS: a Collection of Illustrative Examples. Technical Report P-CS-TR SPLMC-00000001, PReCISE Research Center, University of Namur, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Classen, M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, A. Legay, and J.-F. J.-F. Raskin. Featured Transition Systems: Foundations for Verifying Variability-Intensive Systems and Their Application to LTL Model Checking. IEEE TSE, 39:1069--1089, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Cordy, A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. ProVeLines: A Product Line of Verifiers for Software Product Lines. In SPLC - Vol. 2, pages 141--146, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. A. da Mota Silveira Neto, I. do Carmo Machado, J. D. McGregor, E. S. de Almeida, and S. R. de Lemos Meira. A systematic mapping study of software product lines testing. IST, 53(5):407--423, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. X. Devroey and G. Perrouin. Variability Intensive system Behavioural teSting framework (VIBeS), 2014. version 1.1.2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. X. Devroey, G. Perrouin, M. Cordy, M. Papadakis, A. Legay, and P.-Y. Schobbens. A Variability Perspective of Mutation Analysis. In FSE, pages 841--844, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. X. Devroey, G. Perrouin, M. Cordy, P.-y. Schobbens, A. Legay, and P. Heymans. Towards Statistical Prioritization for Software Product Lines Testing. In VAMOS, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. X. Devroey, G. Perrouin, A. Legay, M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, and P. Heymans. Coverage Criteria for Behavioural Testing of Software Product Lines. In ISoLA, pages 336--350, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. X. Devroey, G. Perrouin, and P.-Y. Schobbens. Abstract Test Case Generation for Behavioural Testing of Software Product Lines. In SPLC - Vol. 2, pages 86--93, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Droste, T. Jansen, and I. Wegener. On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm. Theoretical Computer Science, 276(1--2):51--81, apr 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. Engström and P. Runeson. Software product line testing -- A systematic mapping study. IST, 53:2--13, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. Gusfield. Algorithms on strings, trees and sequences: computer science and computational biology. 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. H. Hemmati, A. Arcuri, and L. Briand. Achieving scalable model-based testing through test case diversity. ACM TOSEM, 22:1--42, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. Hemmati and L. Briand. An Industrial Investigation of Similarity Measures for Model-Based Test Case Selection. In ISSRE, pages 141--150, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. C. Henard, M. Papadakis, M. Harman, and Y. L. Traon. Combining multi-objective search and constraint solving for configuring large software product lines. In ICSE, pages 517--528, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Henard, M. Papadakis, G. Perrouin, J. Klein, P. Heymans, and Y. Le Traon. Bypassing the Combinatorial Explosion: Using Similarity to Generate and Prioritize T-Wise Test Configurations for Software Product Lines. IEEE TSE, 40:650--670, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Henard, M. Papadakis, G. Perrouin, J. Klein, Y. Le Traon, and Y. L. Traon. Assessing Software Product Line Testing Via Model-Based Mutation: An Application to Similarity Testing. ICSTW, pages 188--197, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. Jaccard. Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bulletin del la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, 37:547--579, 1901.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. M. F. Johansen, b. Haugen, and F. Fleurey. An Algorithm for Generating T-wise Covering Arrays from Large Feature Models. In SPLC - Vol. 1, pages 46--55, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and A. S. Peterson. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. H. Lackner and M. Schmidt. Towards the Assessment of Software Product Line Tests: A Mutation System for Variable Systems. In SPLC - Vol. 2, pages 62--69, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. N. Li and J. Offutt. A test automation language framework for behavioral models. In ICSTW, pages 1--10, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. Lochau, S. Oster, U. Goltz, and A. Schürr. Model-based pairwise testing for feature interaction coverage in software product line engineering. SQJ, 20:567--604, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. M. Lochau, I. Schaefer, J. Kamischke, and S. Lity. Incremental Model-Based Testing of Delta-Oriented Software Product Lines. In TAP, pages 67--82, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. P. Mathur. Foundations of software testing. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. D. Mondal, H. Hemmati, and S. Durocher. Exploring Test Suite Diversification and Code Coverage in Multi-Objective Test Case Selection. In ICST, pages 1--10, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. M. Papadakis, C. Henard, and Y. le Traon. Sampling Program Inputs with Mutation Analysis: Going Beyond Combinatorial Interaction Testing. In ICST, pages 1--10, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. G. Perrouin, S. Oster, S. Sen, J. Klein, B. Baudry, and Y. le Traon. Pairwise testing for software product lines: Comparison of two approaches. SQJ, 20:605--643, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. C. Pinto Ferraz Fabbri, M. E. Delamaro, J. C. Maldonado, and P. C. Masiero. Mutation analysis testing for finite state machines. In ISSRE, pages 220--229, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. M. Steffens, S. Oster, M. Lochau, and T. Fogdal. Industrial Evaluation of Pairwise SPL Testing with MoSo-PoLiTe. In VAMOS, pages 55--62, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. J. Tretmans. Model based testing with labelled transition systems. Formal methods and testing, pages 1--38, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    VaMoS '16: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems
    January 2016
    116 pages
    ISBN:9781450340199
    DOI:10.1145/2866614

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 January 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate66of147submissions,45%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader