On Conformance Testing for Timed Systems

Conformance testing for labeled transition systems starts with defining when an implementation conforms to its specification. One of the formal theories for model-based testing uses the implementation relation ioco for this purpose. A peculiar aspect of ioco is to consider the absence of outputs as an observable action, named quiescence. Recently a number of real-time extensions of ioco have been proposed in the literature. Quiescence and the observation of arbitrary delays are issues when defining such extensions. We present two new timed implementation relations and show their relation with existing ones. Based on these new definitions and using several examples, we show the subtle differences, and the consequences that small modifications in the definitions can have on the resulting relations. Moreover, we present conditions under which some of these implementation relations coincide. The notion of M-quiescence, i.e., if outputs occur in a system they occur before a delay M, turns out to be important in these conditions.

[1]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Testing Real-Time Systems Using UPPAAL , 2008, Formal Methods and Testing.

[2]  Ed Brinksma,et al.  A Test Generation Framework for quiescent Real-Time Systems , 2004, FATES.

[3]  Katalin Tarnay,et al.  Testing of Communicating Systems , 1999, IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing.

[4]  Kamel Barkaoui,et al.  Theoretical Aspects of Computing - ICTAC 2006, Third International Colloquium, Tunis, Tunisia, November 20-24, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, ICTAC.

[5]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Theory of Timed Automata , 1994, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study , 2005, EMSOFT.

[7]  Jan Tretmans,et al.  Model Based Testing with Labelled Transition Systems , 2008, Formal Methods and Testing.

[8]  Laura Brandán Briones,et al.  Theories for Model-based Testing: Real-time and Coverage , 2007 .

[9]  Marius Mikucionis,et al.  Formal Methods and Testing , 2008 .

[10]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Interesting Properties of the Real-Time Conformance Relation , 2006, ICTAC.

[11]  Jan Tretmans,et al.  Test Generation with Inputs, Outputs and Repetitive Quiescence , 1996, Softw. Concepts Tools.

[12]  Thierry Jéron,et al.  Test Cases Generation for Nondeterministic Real-Time Systems , 2003, FATES.

[13]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  An Expressive and Implementable Formal Framework for Testing Real-Time Systems , 2005, TestCom.

[14]  Brian Nielsen,et al.  Formal Approaches to Software Testing, 4th International Workshop, FATES 2004, Linz, Austria, September 21, 2004, Revised Selected Papers , 2005, FATES.

[15]  Henrik C. Bohnenkamp,et al.  Timed Testing with TorX , 2005, FM.

[16]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Conformance testing for real-time systems , 2004, SPIN.

[17]  Andreas Podelski,et al.  ACSAR: Software Model Checking with Transfinite Refinement , 2007, SPIN.

[18]  K. Larsen,et al.  Online Testing of Real-time Systems Using Uppaal , 2004, FATES.

[19]  Ian J. Hayes,et al.  FM 2005: Formal Methods, International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, Newcastle, UK, July 18-22, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, FM.