A Toolset for Mobile Systems Testing

Validation of mobile applications needs taking account of context (such network topology) and interactions between mobile nodes. Scenario-based approaches are well-suited to describe the behavior and interactions to observe in distributed systems. The difficulty to control accurately the execution context of such applications has led us to use passive testing. This paper presents a toolset which supports specification and verification of scenarios. A UML-based formal language, called TERMOS, has been implemented for specifying scenarios in mobile computing systems. These scenarios capture the key properties which are automatically checked on the traces, considering both the spatial configuration of nodes and their communication. We give an overview of the language design choices, its semantics and the implementation of the tool chain. The approach is demonstrated on a case study.

[1]  Nicolas Rivière,et al.  Testing mobile computing applications: toward a scenario language and tools , 2008, WODA.

[2]  Nicolas Rivière,et al.  GraphSeq: A Graph Matching Tool for the Extraction of Mobility Patterns , 2010, 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation.

[3]  David Harel,et al.  LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[4]  Nicolas Rivière,et al.  A UML-based environment for test scenarios in mobile settings , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS).

[5]  Vincenzo Grassi,et al.  A UML Profile to Model Mobile Systems , 2004, UML.

[6]  Nicolas Rivière,et al.  TERMOS: A Formal Language for Scenarios in Mobile Computing Systems , 2010, MobiQuitous.

[7]  Christine Julien,et al.  Relying on safe distance to achieve strong partitionable group membership in ad hoc networks , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing.

[8]  Zoltán Szatmári,et al.  A Concept for Testing Robustness and Safety of the Context-Aware Behaviour of Autonomous Systems , 2012, KES-AMSTA.

[9]  Juliana Küster Filipe Bowles.  Modelling Concurrent Interactions , 2004, AMAST.

[10]  Ana R. Cavalli,et al.  A passive conformance testing approach for a MANET routing protocol , 2009, SAC '09.

[11]  Nora Koch,et al.  UML for Global Computing , 2003, Global Computing.

[12]  Mario Kusek,et al.  Extending UML Sequence Diagrams to Model Agent Mobility , 2006, AOSE.

[13]  Zoltán Micskei,et al.  The many meanings of UML 2 Sequence Diagrams: a survey , 2011, Software & Systems Modeling.

[14]  Nicolas Rivière,et al.  GraphSeq Revisited: More Efficient Search for Patterns in Mobility Traces , 2013, EWDC.

[15]  Svetha Venkatesh,et al.  Video sequence matching via decision tree path following , 2001, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[16]  Jochen Klose.  Live sequence charts: a graphical formalism for the specification of communication behavior , 2003 .

[17]  David Harel,et al.  Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams , 2008, SCESM '06.