A Systematic Product Line Test Derivation from Activity Diagrams

The state of the art software product line testing methods attempted test derivation from product lines modeled as activity diagrams (ADs) with the test coverage goals of control flow and data flow. However, the existing methods applied widely different approaches to closely related problems with the consequence that the user of the methods cannot easily see the essence of product line test derivation. Moreover, the existing methods have no solution for P-use test derivation for data flow testing. This paper views this status as the result of not suitably handling variability modeling and binding formation and application and proposes a method that addresses these issues. This is done by introducing an explicit notation for product line AD, which makes clear the distinction between platform AD and product AD, and also by explicitly forming test artifact bindings for products and applying them at suitable steps in the test cases derivation paths.

[1]  Clémentine Nebut,et al.  Automatic test generation: a use case driven approach , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[2]  Myra B. Cohen,et al.  Coverage and adequacy in software product line testing , 2006, ROSATEA '06.

[3]  Myra B. Cohen,et al.  Constructing Interaction Test Suites for Highly-Configurable Systems in the Presence of Constraints: A Greedy Approach , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  Andreas Reuys,et al.  Derivation of Domain Test Scenarios from Activity Diagrams1 , 2003 .

[5]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  The ScenTED Method for Testing Software Product Lines , 2006, Software Product Lines.

[6]  Myungchul Kim,et al.  Towards a Formal Framework for Product Line Test Development , 2007, 7th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT 2007).

[7]  Hassan Gomaa,et al.  Model-based testing for applications derived from software product lines , 2005, ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes.

[8]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Avoiding Redundant Testing in Application Engineering , 2010, SPLC.

[9]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Software product line testing , 2006, CACM.

[10]  Sungwon Kang,et al.  Test Cases Generation from UML Activity Diagrams , 2007, Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD 2007).

[11]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Software Product Line Engineering - Foundations, Principles, and Techniques , 2005 .

[12]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Software Product Line Testing - A Systematic Review , 2009, ICSOFT.

[13]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Testing Variabilities in Use Case Models , 2003, PFE.

[14]  John D. McGregor,et al.  Testing a Software Product Line , 2001, PSSE.

[15]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  Data flow analysis techniques for test data selection , 2015, ICSE '82.

[16]  Contents , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  Antonia Bertolino,et al.  Use case-based testing of product lines , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[18]  Hassan Gomaa.  Designing Software Product Lines with UML 2.0: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures , 2006, ICSR.

[19]  Clémentine Nebut,et al.  System Testing of Product Lines: From Requirements to Test Cases , 2006, Software Product Lines.

[20]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Software Product Line Engineering , 2005 .

[21]  Antonia Bertolino,et al.  Product Line Use Cases: Scenario-Based Specification and Testing of Requirements , 2006, Software Product Lines.

[22]  Juha Taina,et al.  Product family testing: a survey , 2004, SOEN.

[23]  Jia-Guang Sun,et al.  Automated Test Data Generation Algorithm Based on Reversed Binary Tree , 2007 .

[24]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Formal Definition of Syntax and Semantics for Documenting Variability in Activity Diagrams , 2010, SPLC.