Probe Mechanism for Object-Oriented Software Testing

This paper presents a probe-based testing technique that facilitates observing internal details of execution at different levels of abstraction-unit, integration and system levels, during testing of object-oriented software. Our technique adapts probe, an observability measure, to suit the testing needs of object-oriented software. It uses source-code instrumentation, which requires probes to be pre-determined and pre-built in the software during the development phase. Test coverage reports are generated from the information gathered by the executed probes. It includes coverage of probes at probe, method, class, inheritance, regression and dynamic binding levels. During regression testing, our technique helps in the selection of test cases that must be re-executed. Furthermore, the log generated by active probes can be used for post-analysis.

[1]  Tsong Yueh Chen,et al.  TACCLE: a methodology for object-oriented software testing at the class and cluster levels , 2001, TSEM.

[2]  David J. Robson,et al.  A State-Based Approach to the Testing of Class-Based Programs , 1995, Softw. Concepts Tools.

[3]  Lori L. Pollock,et al.  TATOO: Testing and Analysis Tool for Object- Oriented Software , 2001, TACAS.

[4]  Roger T. Alexander,et al.  Design-for-Testability for Object-Oriented Software 1 , 1997 .

[5]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An empirical study of regression test selection techniques , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[6]  Nancy J. Wahl An overview of regression testing , 1999, SOEN.

[7]  Gail C. Murphy,et al.  Experiences with cluster and class testing , 1994, CACM.

[8]  Benjamin G. Zorn,et al.  BIT: A Tool for Instrumenting Java Bytecodes , 1997, USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems.

[9]  Jeffrey K. Hollingsworth,et al.  The dynamic probe class library-an infrastructure for developing instrumentation for performance tools , 2001, Proceedings 15th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. IPDPS 2001.

[10]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Coupling‐based criteria for integration testing , 1998 .

[11]  Robert Hundt,et al.  HP caliper: an architecture for performance analysis tools , 2000, WIESS'00.

[12]  Robert V. Binder,et al.  Design for testability in object-oriented systems , 1994, CACM.

[13]  Mukul K. Sinha,et al.  Improving Software Testability by Observability and Controllabliity Measures , 1994, IFIP Congress.

[14]  John D. McGregor,et al.  Integrated object-oriented testing and development processes , 1994, CACM.

[15]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Analysis techniques for testing polymorphic relationships , 1999, Proceedings of Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems - TOOLS 30 (Cat. No.PR00278).

[16]  Robert Hundt,et al.  HP Caliper: a framework for performance analysis tools , 2000, IEEE Concurr..

[17]  Geoff A. Cohen,et al.  Automatic Program Transformation with JOIE , 1998, USENIX Annual Technical Conference.