2 Why We Need Model-Based Testing
2 Why We Need Model-Based Testing
2 Why We Need Model-Based Testing
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
13 Further Reading<br />
There are many existing formal methods that support modeling and analysis with<br />
complex state, including Alloy (Jackson, 2006), ASMs (Gurevich, 1995; Börger<br />
and Stärk, 2003), B (Abrial, 1996), Promela (Holzmann, 2004), TLA (Lamport,<br />
2002), Unity (Chandy and Misra, 1988), VDM (Fitzgerald and Larsen, 1998), and<br />
Z(Woodcock and Loomes, 1989; Spivey, 1992; Davies and Woodcock, 1996; Jacky,<br />
1997). Case studies in these methods demonstrate many ways to use sets, bags,<br />
sequences, maps, and other data types similar to the ones in the modeling library.<br />
AsmL (abstract state machine language) (Gurevich et al., 2005) includes highlevel<br />
data structures like sets and maps and builds on the theory of partial updates<br />
(Gurevich and Tillmann, 2005) that allows pointwise changes to such data structures<br />
that may, moreover, be nested. AsmL was first supported in the model-based testing<br />
tool AsmL-T (Barnett et al., 2003) and is also supported in the Spec Explorer<br />
tool (SpecExplorer, 2006). Spec Explorer also supports an extension of the Spec#<br />
language (Barnett et al., 2005) with high-level data structures such as sets and maps.<br />
The pruning techniques discussed in Section 11.2 are mostly based on work that<br />
was done in Spec Explorer (Veanes et al., in press). The use of composition in this<br />
context is based on Veanes et al. (2007a). The state grouping technique discussed<br />
in Section 11.2.5 is introduced in Grieskamp et al. (2002). The algorithm is also<br />
explained in Börger and Stärk (2003, Section 3.2). The technique can be extended<br />
to multiple groupings (Campbell and Veanes, 2005) that can be used to define<br />
groupings per feature in a model program with multiple features. State grouping is<br />
related to abstraction in model checking (Clarke et al., 1999).<br />
Strategies for fully controlled systems is a special case of strategies for reactive<br />
systems. In Yannakakis (2004) such strategies are classified as preset strategies<br />
as opposed to adaptive strategies where (possibly nondeterministic) outputs of the<br />
IUT may affect the strategy. (See also Chapter 17 in this connection.) The custom<br />
strategy defined in Section 12.4.2 originates from Veanes et al. (2006).<br />
The various notions of coverage mentioned in Section 12.4 are related to<br />
correspodning classical notions of coverage in the context of black-box testing<br />
more free ebooks download links at:<br />
http://www.ebook-x.com<br />
219
Change language