Managing Execution Environment Variability during Software Testing: An Industrial Experience

Nowadays, telecom software applications are expected to run on a tremendous variety of execution environments. For example, network connection software must deliver the same functionalities on distinct physical platforms, which themselves run several distinct operating systems, with various applications and physical devices. Testing those applications is challenging as it is simply impossible to consider every possible environment configuration. This paper reports on an industrial case study called BIEW (Business and Internet EveryWhere) where the combinatorial explosion of environment configurations has been tackled with a dedicated and original methodology devised by KEREVAL, a french SME focusing on software testing services. The proposed solution samples a subset of configurations to be tested, based on environment modelling, requirement analysis and systematic traceability. From the experience on this case study, we outline the challenges to develop means to select relevant environment configurations from variability modelling and requirement analysis in the testing processes of telecom software.

[1]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  Disambiguating the Documentation of Variability in Software Product Lines: A Separation of Concerns, Formalization and Automated Analysis , 2007, 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007).

[2]  Sebastian Oster,et al.  Automated Incremental Pairwise Testing of Software Product Lines , 2010, SPLC.

[3]  Jan Tretmans,et al.  Model-Based Testing of Industrial Transformational Systems , 2011, ICTSS.

[4]  Sergio Segura,et al.  Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review , 2010, Inf. Syst..

[5]  Myra B. Cohen,et al.  An Improved Meta-heuristic Search for Constrained Interaction Testing , 2009, 2009 1st International Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering.

[6]  Michael L. Fredman,et al.  The AETG System: An Approach to Testing Based on Combinatiorial Design , 1997, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[7]  Arnaud Gotlieb,et al.  PACOGEN: Automatic Generation of Pairwise Test Configurations from Feature Models , 2011, 2011 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering.

[8]  Jaejoon Lee,et al.  Software Product Lines: Going Beyond - 14th International Conference, SPLC 2010, Jeju Island, South Korea, September 13-17, 2010. Proceedings , 2010, SPLC.

[9]  Jacques Klein,et al.  Automated and Scalable T-wise Test Case Generation Strategies for Software Product Lines , 2010, 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation.

[10]  Macario Polo,et al.  Testing Product Generation in Software Product Lines Using Pairwise for Features Coverage , 2010, ICTSS.

[11]  Tim Trew,et al.  Using Feature Diagrams with Context Variability to Model Multiple Product Lines for Software Supply Chains , 2008, 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference.

[12]  Kevin Lano,et al.  Slicing of UML models using model transformations , 2010, MODELS'10.

[13]  Øystein Haugen,et al.  Properties of realistic feature models make combinatorial testing of product lines feasible , 2011, MODELS'11.

[14]  Yu Lei,et al.  In-parameter-order: a test generation strategy for pairwise testing , 1998, Proceedings Third IEEE International High-Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium (Cat. No.98EX231).

[15]  Kyo Chul Kang,et al.  Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study , 1990 .

[16]  Andreas Classen,et al.  Relating requirements and feature configurations: a systematic approach , 2009, SPLC.

[17]  Yu Lei,et al.  A Test Generation Strategy for Pairwise Testing , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..