Electronic Communications of the EASST Volume 54 ( 2012 ) Proceedings of the 7 th International Workshop on Graph Based Tools ( GraBaTs 2012 ) Gray Box Coverage Criteria for Testing Graph Pattern Matching

Model transformations (MT) are a core building block of Model-Driven Engineering. The quality of MT specifications and implementations is vital to their success. The well-researched formal underpinning of graph transformation (GT) theory allows for proving quality-relevant properties and enables stringent implementations. Yet, in practice, MT implementations often depend on verification/validation techniques based on dynamic testing. This work presents a new gray box coverage approach for systematic testing of GT-based MT implementations and pattern specifications. The approach uses GT specifics and  enforces systematic testing by examining variable binding and unbinding steps, thereby not making further assumptions about the underlying pattern matching algorithm. A family of coverage criteria is defined as temporal logic (LTL) formulae, and the  effectiveness of concrete criteria in limiting the testing effort is examined by an example.

[1]  Jochen Malte Küster,et al.  Validation of model transformations: first experiences using a white box approach , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[2]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches , 2006, IBM Syst. J..

[3]  Raffaela Mirandola,et al.  MANTra: Towards Model Transformation Testing , 2010, 2010 Seventh International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology.

[4]  Juan de Lara,et al.  A UML/OCL framework for the analysis of graph transformation rules , 2009, Software & Systems Modeling.

[5]  Andy Schürr,et al.  An Algorithm for Generating Model-Sensitive Search Plans for EMF Models , 2012, ICMT@TOOLS.

[6]  Jim Steel,et al.  Model-based test driven development of the Tefkat model-transformation engine , 2004, 15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering.

[7]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation , 2006, Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series.

[8]  István Ráth,et al.  Incremental pattern matching in the viatra model transformation system , 2008, GRaMoT '08.

[9]  Leif Geiger Story Driven Testing-SDT , 2005 .

[10]  Dániel Varró,et al.  Towards Testing the Implementation of Graph Transformations , 2008, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Gabriele Taentzer,et al.  AGG: A Graph Transformation Environment for Modeling and Validation of Software , 2003, AGTIVE.

[12]  Yves Le Traon,et al.  Qualifying input test data for model transformations , 2009, Software & Systems Modeling.

[13]  Ingo Stürmer,et al.  Generating Test Cases for Code Generators by Unfolding Graph Transformation Systems , 2004, ICGT.

[14]  Andy Schürr,et al.  Emoflon: leveraging EMF and professional CASE tools , 2011, GI-Jahrestagung.

[15]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[16]  Holger Giese,et al.  Automatic Conformance Testing of Optimized Triple Graph Grammar Implementations , 2011, AGTIVE.

[17]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Tractable Model Transformation Testing , 2011, ECMFA.

[18]  Valentin Goranko,et al.  Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning About Systems , 2007, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[19]  Gregor Engels,et al.  Test Suite Quality for Model Transformation Chains , 2011, TOOLS.

[20]  Yves Le Traon,et al.  Barriers to systematic model transformation testing , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[21]  Luciano Baresi,et al.  An Efficient Solution for Model Checking Graph Transformation Systems , 2008, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[22]  James F. Power,et al.  White-Box Coverage Criteria for Model Transformations , 2009 .

[23]  Robert V. Binder,et al.  Testing Object-Oriented Systems: Models, Patterns, and Tools , 1999 .

[24]  Juan de Lara,et al.  AToM3: A Tool for Multi-formalism and Meta-modelling , 2002, FASE.