Conformance Relations and Test Derivation

It seems that finite state machines (FSM's) and (finite) labeled transition systems (LTS's) are competing descriptive models for system specifications in various areas, including communication protocols. Much work on the derivation of tests from a given system specification has been done separately for these two models. In this paper, we attempt to make a comparative study of existing approaches of test derivation for these two similar, but still distinct models, and we show that borrowing ideas from one type of model for the realm of the other might be useful. In order to formally compare the two models of FSM's and LTS's, we use a formal framework for conformance testing based on conformance relations and a set of possible observations. We show how the conformance relations can be combined with explicit fault models for the tested implementations. It is shown that, within the FSM framework, a hierarchy of conformance relations used for the comparison between the specification and the tested implementation, reflects the hierarchy of classes of models (completely specified and deterministic, deterministic, and non-deterministic). In particular, the reduction relation between non-deterministic FSM's can be used to derive other useful relations for the other classes of models. A review of test derivation methods for FSM models shows that guaranteed fault coverage within a predefined fault domain may be obtained. The second part of the paper shows that the methods for test suite derivation from FSM specifications can be applied for testing various conformance relations in respect to LTS specifications. The idea is to define, for a given LTS specification and conformance relation, a corresponding FSM specification such that the application of the FSM test suite (based on trace conformance) is equivalent to the verification of the given conformance relation in respect to the LTS specification. The feasibility of this approach is presented for the so-called failure trace equivalence between the LTS specification and the implementation. A corresponding canonical FSM tester can also be defined. Keyword Codes: C.2.2; D.2; D.2.5

[1]  Edward F. Moore,et al.  Gedanken-Experiments on Sequential Machines , 1956 .

[2]  Arthur Gill,et al.  Introduction to the theory of finite-state machines , 1962 .

[3]  S. Seshu,et al.  Introduction to the theory of finite-state machines , 1963 .

[4]  F. C. Hennie.  Fault detecting experiments for sequential circuits , 1964, SWCT.

[5]  Edward J. McCluskey,et al.  Derivation of optimum test sequences for sequential machines , 1964, SWCT.

[6]  Taylor L. Booth,et al.  Sequential machines and automata theory , 1967 .

[7]  Tsun S. Chow,et al.  Testing Software Design Modeled by Finite-State Machines , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[8]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation , 1979 .

[9]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Communicating Systems , 1980, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  J. Taylor,et al.  Switching and finite automata theory, 2nd ed. , 1980, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[11]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Modal Characterisation of Observable Machine-Behaviour , 1981, CAAP.

[12]  Richard Y. Kain,et al.  Automata theory: Machines and languages , 1981 .

[13]  Iain Phillips,et al.  Refusal Testing , 1986, Theoretical Computer Science.

[14]  Rom Langerak.  A Testing Theory for LOTOS using Deadlock Detection , 1989, PSTV.

[15]  N. V. Evtushenko.  Fault-detection capability of multiple experiments , 1989 .

[16]  Dirk Taubner,et al.  Finite Representations of CCS and TCSP Programs by Automata and Petri Nets , 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[17]  Rudie Alderden,et al.  COOPER - The Compositional Construction of a Canonical Tester , 1989, Formal Techniques for (Networked and) Distributed Systems.

[18]  Deepinder P. Sidhu,et al.  Formal Methods for Protocol Testing: A Detailed Study , 1989, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[19]  Clazien D. Wezeman.  The CO-OP Method for Compositional Derivation of Conformance Testers , 1989, PSTV.

[20]  Dirk A. Taubner,et al.  Finite Reresentations of CCS and TCSP Programs by Automata and Petri Nets , 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  David H. Pitt,et al.  The Derivation of Conformance Tests from LOTOS Specifications , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[22]  R. J. vanGlabbeek.  The linear time - branching time spectrum , 1990 .

[23]  Guy Leduc,et al.  Conformance Relation, Associated Equivalence, and New Canonical Tester in LOTOS , 1991, PSTV.

[24]  David Lee,et al.  Testing finite state machines , 1991, STOC '91.

[25]  Alexandre Petrenko,et al.  Synthesis of test experiments in some classes of automata , 1991 .

[26]  Jan Tretmans,et al.  A Formal Approach to Conformance Testing , 1993, Protocol Test Systems.

[27]  Hasan Ural,et al.  Formal methods for test sequence generation , 1992, Comput. Commun..

[28]  Nina Yevtushenko,et al.  Test Suite Generation from a FSM with a Given Type of Implementation Errors , 1992, PSTV.

[29]  Khalil Drira,et al.  Testability of a Communicating System Through an Environment , 1993, TAPSOFT.

[30]  Alexandre Petrenko,et al.  Selecting test sequences for partially-specified nondeterministic finite state machines , 1995 .