A Formal Evaluation of Data Flow Path Selection Criteria

The authors report on the results of their evaluation of path-selection criteria based on data-flow relationships. They show how these criteria relate to each other, thereby demonstrating some of their strengths and weaknesses. A subsumption hierarchy showing their relationship is presented. It is shown that one of the major weaknesses of all the criteria is that they are based solely on syntactic information and do not consider semantic issues such as infeasible paths. The authors discuss the infeasible-path problem as well as other issues that must be considered in order to evaluate these criteria more meaningfully and to formulate a more effective path-selection criterion. >

[1]  Simeon C. Ntafos,et al.  On Required Element Testing , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[2]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  Data flow analysis techniques for test data selection , 2015, ICSE '82.

[3]  Martin R. Woodward,et al.  Experience with Path Analysis and Testing of Programs , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  Arnold L. Rosenberg,et al.  The significance of program dependences for software testing, debugging, and maintenance , 1989 .

[5]  R.A. DeMillo,et al.  An extended overview of the Mothra software testing environment , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Second Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis.

[6]  Steven J. Zeil,et al.  Selectivity of data-flow and control-flow path criteria , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Second Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis.

[7]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  Selecting Software Test Data Using Data Flow Information , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[8]  Simeon C. Ntafos,et al.  ON TESTING WITH REQUIRED ELEMENTS. , 1981 .

[9]  Debra J. Richardson,et al.  An Analysis of Text Data Selection Criteria Using the RELAY Model of , 1986 .

[10]  Debra J. Richardson,et al.  The RELAY model of error detection and its application , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Second Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis.

[11]  Leon J. Osterweil,et al.  Dave—a validation error detection and documentation system for fortran programs , 1976, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[12]  E. J. Weyuker.  An empirical study of the complexity of data flow testing , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Second Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis.

[13]  Steven J. Zeil.  Perturbation Techniques for Detecting Domain Errors , 1989, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[14]  Janusz W. Laski,et al.  A Data Flow Oriented Program Testing Strategy , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[15]  Lori A. Clarke,et al.  The implications of program dependencies for software testing, debugging, and maintenance , 1989 .

[16]  Simeon C. Ntafos,et al.  A Comparison of Some Structural Testing Strategies , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[17]  Lori A. Clarke,et al.  A comparison of data flow path selection criteria , 1985, ICSE '85.

[18]  William E. Howden,et al.  A functional approach to program testing and analysis , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[19]  Elaine J. Weyuker.  The Complexity of Data Flow Criteria for Test Data Selection , 1984, Inf. Process. Lett..

[20]  William E. Howden,et al.  Methodology for the Generation of Program Test Data , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[21]  P. M. Herman,et al.  A Data Flow Analysis Approach to Program Testing , 1976, Aust. Comput. J..

[22]  L. J. Morell.  Theoretical insights into fault-based testing , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Second Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis.

[23]  Lori A. Clarke,et al.  Applications of symbolic evaluation , 1985, J. Syst. Softw..