Analysis and Testing of Ajax-based Single-page Web Applications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Browser UI HTTP GET HTML Server App Server Figure 1.3 Classical web client/server interaction pattern. As the web matured, more server-side scripting languages appeared, examples of which include PHP, Python, Ruby, JavaServer Pages (JSP), and Active Server Pages (ASP). Such languages typically run on the server, have access to various resources, and are capable of creating and returning web pages upon request. The ability to generate web pages contributed to the separation of concerns (presentation, business logic, data) and realization of multi-tier architectures for web applications. 1.1.3 Web Architecture By the year 2000, many of the initial concepts forming the backbone of the web (e.g., HTTP, URI, HTML) and additional recommendations such as Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) (level 2) and Document Object Model (DOM) (W3C, a) (level 2) were standardized through the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). In addition, an architectural style of the web called REpresentational State Transfer (REST) was proposed by Fielding (2000), capturing the essence of the main features of the web architecture, through architectural constraints and properties. Rest specifies a layered client-stateless-server architecture in which each request is independent of the previous ones, inducing the property of scalability. In practice, however, not many web implementations can be found that abide by the restrictions set by Rest. In particular, many developers have ignored the stateless constraint by allowing the server to keep track of relevant state changes. Chapter 2 discusses the architecture of the web in more detail. 1.1.4 Rich Internet Applications It soon became apparent that HTML was not designed for creating an interactive Graphical User Interface (GUI). Classical web applications are, inherently, based on a multi-page user interface model, in which interactions are based on a synchronous page-sequence paradigm. While simple and elegant in design for exchanging documents, this model has many limitations for developing modern web applications with user friendly human-computer interaction. The main limitations can be summarized as follows: • Low lever of user interactivity; 4 1.1. Web Evolution
Figure 1.4 Screen shot of OpenLaszlo Webtop, a RIA providing functionality for email, address book, and calendars. • Redundant data transfer between the client/server; • High user-perceived latency; • The browser is passive: there is hardly any application-specific clientside processing. The concept of a Rich Internet Application (RIA) was proposed (Allaire, 2002) as a response, to describe a new class of web applications that could provide richer user interface components on the browser. The common ground for all RIAs is an intermediate layer of code introduced between the user and the server, which acts as an extension of the browser, usually taking over responsibility of server communication and rendering the web user interface. An example of a RIA technology is a Java Applet, which extends the web browser, using a Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Other well-known examples include Adobe Flex (based on Flash), OpenLaszlo, and Microsoft Silverlight. Figure 1.4 depicts a screen shot of a RIA desktop, built on OpenLaszlo. One of the main issues with such technologies is their non-standard (proprietary) plugin-based nature. Users need to install specific plugins for each of the RIA technologies mentioned above. 1.1.5 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) is a term often used describing changing trends in the use of web technology, i.e., evolution from a hypertext read-only system into a dynamic medium of user-created content and rich interaction. Even though the term is ambiguously defined, it revolves around web technologies that promote: • strong participation of web users as a source of content (e.g., the online free encyclopedia Wikipedia, the photo sharing site Flickr), Chapter 1. Introduction 5
Page 1 and 2: Analysis and Testing of Ajax-based
Page 3 and 4: Contents Preface List of Acronyms i
Page 5 and 6: 3.3.4 Single-page UI Model Definiti
Page 7 and 8: 6.3.2 Trigger . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 9 and 10: Preface our years have passed since
Page 11 and 12: List of Acronyms ASP Active Server
Page 13 and 14: Introduction A ccording to recent s
Page 15: Figure 1.2 Screen shot of the Mosai
Page 19 and 20: DOM APIs, a technique that was call
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1.6 Screen shot of Google Su
Page 23 and 24: Figure 1.7 Screen shot of Google Do
Page 25 and 26: Reengineering Analysis & Testing Ar
Page 27 and 28: client/server and network-based env
Page 29 and 30: To the best of our knowledge, at th
Page 31 and 32: Table 1.1 ❳❳ ❳ ❳ ❳❳ Cha
Page 33 and 34: equally and we chose to use an alph
Page 35 and 36: A Component- and Push-based Archite
Page 37 and 38: Page Internet Application aRchitect
Page 39 and 40: XML message containing directives t
Page 41 and 42: server sends the data to the client
Page 43 and 44: • Code reuse: shared implementati
Page 45 and 46: Rest provides Ajax demands Large-gr
Page 47 and 48: work well, will lose customers (Off
Page 49 and 50: communication between client and se
Page 51 and 52: GWT uses an RPC style of calling se
Page 53 and 54: DOM Client Browser event update Aja
Page 55 and 56: Client Server Legend Interaction po
Page 57 and 58: User Interactivity User-perceived L
Page 59 and 60: User Interactivity User-perceived L
Page 61 and 62: and does not comply with the Resour
Page 63 and 64: 2.8.9 Design Models Figure 2.8 show
Page 65 and 66: of user tasks as first class entiti
Page 67 and 68:
Migrating Multi-page Web Applicatio
Page 69 and 70:
Web App 1 Page deltaChange viewChan
Page 71 and 72:
gational and structural model of th
Page 73 and 74:
Classic Web application Retrieve pa
Page 75 and 76:
Algorithm 1 1: procedure start (Pag
Page 77 and 78:
3.5.2 Identifying Elements The list
Page 79 and 80:
Classification # of pages Home (Ind
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 3.7 A candidate UI component
Page 83 and 84:
target system. Even though the tech
Page 85 and 86:
Third, we proposed a schema-based c
Page 87 and 88:
Performance Testing of Data Deliver
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 4.1 A screenshot taken from
Page 91 and 92:
the user. Ideally, the pulling inte
Page 93 and 94:
Streaming Figure 4.3 shows how the
Page 95 and 96:
4.4 Experimental Design In this sec
Page 97 and 98:
Mean Publish Trip-time (MPT) We def
Page 99 and 100:
tributes to the complexity of contr
Page 101 and 102:
8. Start the publisher and begin pu
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 4.8 Sample Stock Ticker Appl
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 4.9 Mean Publish Trip-time C
Page 107 and 108:
4.6.3 Received Publish Messages Fig
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 4.12 Mean Number of Received
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 4.13 Percentage of data item
Page 113 and 114:
with pull is higher than push. This
Page 115 and 116:
this scenario, a data item will onl
Page 117 and 118:
With the pull approach, achieving t
Page 119 and 120:
Crawling Ajax by Inferring User Int
Page 121 and 122:
discusses the findings and open iss
Page 123 and 124:
5.3 A Method for Crawling Ajax The
Page 125 and 126:
Robot click UI Browser generate cli
Page 127 and 128:
5.3.5 Creating States After firing
Page 129 and 130:
1 crawl MyAjaxSite { 2 url: http://
Page 131 and 132:
The generator uses JTidy 10 to pret
Page 133 and 134:
G1. For the experiment we have manu
Page 135 and 136:
19247 examined candidate elements,
Page 137 and 138:
ich interactivity and responsivenes
Page 139 and 140:
5.8 Related Work The concept behind
Page 141 and 142:
Invariant-Based Automatic Testing o
Page 143 and 144:
has some support for client-side sc
Page 145 and 146:
6.3.2 Trigger Once we are able to d
Page 147 and 148:
a new edge is created on the graph
Page 149 and 150:
Other Invariants. In line with the
Page 151 and 152:
6.7.1 Oracle Comparators After each
Page 153 and 154:
Algorithm 4 Pre/postCrawling hooks
Page 155 and 156:
LOC Server-side LOC Client-side DOM
Page 157 and 158:
todo items, removing all items inst
Page 159 and 160:
Failure Cause Violated Invariant In
Page 161 and 162:
plications) is that it is very hard
Page 163 and 164:
1. A series of fault models that ca
Page 165 and 166:
Conclusion ith the advent of Ajax t
Page 167 and 168:
out to be an appropriate framework
Page 169 and 170:
plays a more prominent role in the
Page 171 and 172:
correct behavior. Violations in the
Page 173 and 174:
A great deal of our work has focuse
Page 175 and 176:
A Single-page Ajax Example Applicat
Page 177 and 178:
1 if(navigator.appName == "Microsof
Page 179 and 180:
Figure A.5 The run-time DOM instanc
Page 181 and 182:
Figure A.7 The request/response tra
Page 183 and 184:
Samenvatting ⋆ Analyse en Testing
Page 185 and 186:
een dergelijk model te creëren, do
Page 187 and 188:
Bibliography Abrams, M., Phanouriou
Page 189 and 190:
Bouras, C. and Konidaris, A. (2005)
Page 191 and 192:
De Lucia, A., Scanniello, G., and T
Page 193 and 194:
Garofalakis, M., Gionis, A., Rastog
Page 195 and 196:
Levenshtein, V. L. (1996). Binary c
Page 197 and 198:
Netscape (1995). An exploration of
Page 199 and 200:
Sprenkle, S., Pollock, L., Esquivel
Page 201 and 202:
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M.,
Page 203 and 204:
Curriculum Vitae Personal Data Full
Page 205 and 206:
A. Dijkstra. Stepping through Haske
Page 207 and 208:
M. A. Abam. New Data Structures and
show all

Analysis and Testing of Ajax-based Single-page Web Applications

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?