The KIPS Transactions:PartD (정보처리학회논문지D)

Korea Information Processing Society (한국정보처리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Automatic Test Case Generation Through 1-to-1 Requirement Modeling

1대1 요구사항 모델링을 통한 테스트 케이스 자동 생성

  • Published : 2010.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A relation between generated test cases and an original requirement is important, but it becomes very complex because a relation between requirement models and requirements are m-to-n in automatic test case generation based on models. In this paper, I suggest automatic generation technique for REED (REquirement EDitor), 1-to-1 requirement modeling tool. Test cases are generated though 3 steps, Coverage Target Generation, IORT (Input Output Relation Tree)Generation, and Test Cases Generation. All these steps are running automatically. The generated test cases can be generated from a single requirement. As a result of applying to three real commercial systems, there are 5566 test cases for the Temperature Controller, 3757 test cases for Bus Card Terminal, and 4611 test cases for Excavator Controller.

생성된 테스트 케이스와 요구사항과의 연관관계가 중요하지만, 모델을 이용한 테스트 케이스 자동생성에서는 모델이 요구사항과 m:n의 관계를 맺기 때문에 테스트 케이스와 요구사항과의 관계도 매우 복잡해진다. 본 논문에서는 1:1 모델링 도구인 REED(REquirement EDitor)를 이용하여 테스트 케이스를 생성하는 방법에 대하여 기술한다. 테스트 케이스는 커버리지 타겟 생성, IORT(Input Output Relation Tree) 생성, 테스트 케이스 생성의 3단계를 거치며, 모든 단계는 자동으로 진행된다. 생성된 테스트 케이스는 하나의 요구사항에서 생성될 수 있으며 실제 시스템에 적용한 결과, 온도조절장치 경우는 5,566개, 버스카드 단말기의 경우는 3,757개, 굴착기 제어기는 4,611개의 테스트 케이스가 생성되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. J.J. Gutierrez, M.J. Escalona, M.Mejias, and J.Torres, “Generation of test cases from functional requirements. A survey,” Congreso:SV06. 4th Workshop on System Testing and Validation, 30 March, 2006.
  2. Tahat, L.H., Vaysburg, B., Korel, B., and Bader, A.J., “Requirement-based automated black-box test generation,” 25th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, Vol.2. pp.636-639, 2001.
  3. Ajitha Rajan, “Automated requirements-based test case generation,” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol.31, Issue6, pp.1-2, 2006.
  4. Offutt J, and Abdurazik A, “Generating tests from UML specifications,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on. the Unified Modeling Language (UML '99), pp.416-429, October 1999.
  5. Alessandra Cavarra, Charles chrichton, Jim Davies, Alan Hartman, Thierry Jeron, and Laurent Mounier, “Using UML for Automatic Test Generation,” Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, (TACAS'2000), 2000.
  6. Jorg Desel, Andreas Oberweis, and Torsten Zimmer, “A test case generator for the validation of high-level Petri nets,” 1997 6th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation Proceedings, ETFA '97., pp. 327-332, Sep 1997.
  7. C. Bourhfir, R. Dssouli, E. Aboulhamid, and N. Rico, “Automatic executable test case generation for extended finite state machine protocols,” Proceedings of IFIP TC6 10th International Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems, pp.75-90, Sep., 1997.
  8. Jungsup Oh, Hongseok Lee, Hyunsang Park, Jangbok Kim, Kyunghee Choi, Kihyun Jung, “A Single Requirement Modeling with Graphical Language for Embedded System,” The KIPS Transactions : Part D, Vol.15-D, No.4, (Serial Number 121), August 2008. https://doi.org/10.3745/KIPSTD.2008.15-D.4.505
  9. Object Management Group, “Unified Modleling Language (UML), Version 2.1.2,” http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/,November 2007.
  10. The MathWorks, Inc., http://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink/
  11. Conformiq Software Whitepaper, “Conformiq QtronicTM SG : Semantic and Algorithms for Test Generation,” http://www.conformiq.com, 2008.
  12. N. De Francesco1 and P. Inverardi2, “A semantic driven method to check the fineteness of CCS processes,” Computer Aided Verification, Vol.575, pp.266-276, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55179-4
  13. A.Gargantini and C.Heitmeyer, “Using Model Checking to Generate Tests from Requirements Specifications,” In Proceedings of the Joint 7th Eur. Software Engineering Conference and 7th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. Toulouse, France, pp.146-162, September 1999.
  14. Reactive Systems, Inc., http://www.reactive-systems.com/reactis.msp
  15. TNI Software, “Safety Test Builder, Automatic Test Generation, for Simulink/Stateflow,” http://www.tni-software.com/commun/docs/safetytestbuilder.pdf.
  16. Applied Dynamics International, “BEACON for Simulink/Stateflow,” http://www.adi.com/products_be_bss.htm.
  17. T-VEC Technologies, “T-Vec Tester for Simulink,” http://www.t-vec.com/solutions/ simulink.php.
  18. The Mathworks, “Simulink Design verifier,” http://www.mathworks.com.
  19. Hayhurst, K. J., Veerhusen, D. S., Chilenski, J. J., and Rierson, L. K. “A Practical Tutorial on Modified Condition/Decision Coverage,” Report NASA/TM-2001-210876, May 2001, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hayhurst01practical.html

Cited by

  1. Constructing Software Structure Graph through Progressive Execution vol.18, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2013.18.7.111