FLOWGRAPHS AND PATH TESTING:

This unit gives an indepth overview of path testing and its applications.
At the end of this unit, the student will be able to:

 Understand the concept of path testing.

 Identify the components of a control flow diagram and compare the same with
a flowchart.
 Represent the control flow graph in the form of a Linked List notation.
 Understand the path testing and selection criteria and their limitations.
 Interpret a control flow-graph and demonstrate the complete path testing to
achieve C1+C2.
 Classify the predicates and variables as dependant/independant and
correlated/uncorrelated.
 Understand the path sensitizing method and classify whether the path is
achievable or not.
 Identify the problem due to co-incidental correctness and choose a path
instrumentation method to overcome the problem.

BASICS OF PATH TESTING:

 PATH TESTING:
o Path Testing is the name given to a family of test techniques based
on judiciously selecting a set of test paths through the program.
o If the set of paths are properly chosen then we have achieved
some measure of test thoroughness. For example, pick enough
paths to assure that every source statement has been executed at
least once.
o Path testing techniques are the oldest of all structural test
techniques.
o Path testing is most applicable to new software for unit testing. It is
a structural technique.
o It requires complete knowledge of the program's structure.
o It is most often used by programmers to unit test their own code.
o The effectiveness of path testing rapidly deteriorates as the size of
the software aggregate under test increases.
 THE BUG ASSUMPTION:
o The bug assumption for the path testing strategies is that
something has gone wrong with the software that makes it take a
different path than intended.
o As an example "GOTO X" where "GOTO Y" had been intended.
 o Structured programming languages prevent many of the bugs
targeted by path testing: as a consequence the effectiveness for
path testing for these languages is reduced and for old code in
COBOL, ALP, FORTRAN and Basic, the path testing is
indespensable.
 CONTROL FLOW GRAPHS:
o The control flow graph is a graphical representation of a program's
control structure. It uses the elements named process blocks,
decisions, and junctions.
o The flow graph is similar to the earlier flowchart, with which it is not
to be confused.
o Flow Graph Elements:A flow graph contains four different types of
elements. (1) Process Block (2) Decisions (3) Junctions (4) Case
Statements
1. Process Block:
 A process block is a sequence of program
statements uninterrupted by either decisions
or junctions.
 It is a sequence of statements such that if any
one of statement of the block is executed, then
all statement thereof are executed.
 Formally, a process block is a piece of straight
line code of one statement or hundreds of
statements.
 A process has one entry and one exit. It can
consists of a single statement or instruction, a
sequence of statements or instructions, a
single entry/exit subroutine, a macro or
function call, or a sequence of these.
2. Decisions:
 A decision is a program point at which the
control flow can diverge.
 Machine language conditional branch and
conditional skip instructions are examples of
decisions.
 Most of the decisions are two-way but some
are three way branches in control flow.
3. Case Statements:
 A case statement is a multi-way branch or
decisions.
 Examples of case statement are a jump table
in assembly language, and the PASCAL case
statement.
 From the point of view of test design, there are
no differences between Decisions and Case
Statements
 4. Junctions:
 A junction is a point in the program where the
control flow can merge.
 Examples of junctions are: the target of a jump
or skip instruction in ALP, a label that is a
target of GOTO.

Figure 2.1: Flowgraph Elements

1. CONTROL FLOW GRAPHS Vs FLOWCHARTS:

o A program's flow chart resembles a control flow graph.
o In flow graphs, we don't show the details of what is in a process
block.
o In flow charts every part of the process block is drawn.
o The flowchart focuses on process steps, where as the flow graph
focuses on control flow of the program.
o The act of drawing a control flow graph is a useful tool that can
help us clarify the control flow and data flow issues.
2. NOTATIONAL EVOULTION:
o The control flow graph is simplified representation of the program's
structure.
o The notation changes made in creation of control flow graphs:

1. The process boxes weren't really needed. There is an

implied process on every line joining junctions and
decisions.
2. We don't need to know the specifics of the decisions, just
the fact that there is a branch.
3. The specific target label names aren't important-just the
fact that they exist. So we can replace them by simple
numbers.
4. To understand this, we will go through an example
(Figure 2.2) written in a FORTRAN like programming
language called Programming Design Language
(PDL). The program's corresponding flowchart (Figure
2.3) and flowgraph (Figure 2.4) were also provided below
for better understanding.
5. The first step in translating the program to a flowchart is
shown in Figure 2.3, where we have the typical one-for-
one classical flowchart. Note that complexity has
increased, clarity has decreased, and that we had to add
auxiliary labels (LOOP, XX, and YY), which have no
actual program counterpart. In Figure 2.4 we merged the
process steps and replaced them with the single process
box. We now have a control flowgraph. But this
representation is still too busy. We simplify the notation
further to achieve Figure 2.5, where for the first time we
can really see what the control flow looks like.
Figure 2.2: Program Example (PDL)

Figure 2.3: One-to-one flowchart for

example program in Figure 2.2

 
 Figure 2.4: Control Flowgraph for
example in Figure 2.2

Figure 2.5: Simplified Flowgraph

Notation

Figure 2.6: Even Simplified Flowgraph

Notation

The final transformation is shown in Figure 2.6, where

we've dropped the node numbers to achieve an even
simpler representation. The way to work with control
 flowgraphs is to use the simplest possible representation
- that is, no more information than you need to correlate
back to the source program or PDL.

 LINKED LIST REPRESENTATION:

1. Although graphical representations of flowgraphs are revealing, the
details of the control flow inside a program they are often
inconvenient.
2. In linked list representation, each node has a name and there is an
entry on the list for each link in the flow graph. only the information
pertinent to the control flow is shown.
3. Linked List representation of Flow Graph:

Figure 2.7: Linked List Control Flowgraph

Notation

 FLOWGRAPH - PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE:

1. A flow graph is a pictorial representation of a program and not the
program itself, just as a topographic map.
2. You cant always associate the parts of a program in a unique way
with flowgraph parts because many program structures, such as if-
then-else constructs, consists of a combination of decisions,
junctions, and processes.
3. The translation from a flowgraph element to a statement and vice
versa is not always unique. (See Figure 2.8)

Figure 2.8: Alternative Flowgraphs for same logic

(Statement "IF (A=0) AND (B=1) THEN . . .").

4. An improper translation from flowgraph to code during coding can

lead to bugs, and improper translation during the test design lead
to missing test cases and causes undiscovered bugs.
 FLOWGRAPH AND FLOWCHART GENERATION:
1. Flowcharts can be

1. Handwritten by the programmer.

2. Automatically produced by a flowcharting program based
on a mechanical analysis of the source code.
3. Semi automatically produced by a flow charting program
based in part on structural analysis of the source code
and in part on directions given by the programmer.
2. There are relatively few control flow graph generators.
2. PATH TESTING - PATHS, NODES AND LINKS:
1. Path:a path through a program is a sequence of instructions or
statements that starts at an entry, junction, or decision and ends at
another, or possibly the same junction, decision, or exit.
2. A path may go through several junctions, processes, or decisions,
one or more times.
3. Paths consists of segments.
4. The segment is a link - a single process that lies between two
nodes.
5. A path segment is succession of consecutive links that belongs to
some path.
6. The length of path measured by the number of links in it and not by
the number of the instructions or statements executed along that
path.
7. The name of a path is the name of the nodes along the path.
3. FUNDAMENTAL PATH SELECTION CRITERIA:
1. There are many paths between the entry and exit of a typical
routine.
2. Every decision doubles the number of potential paths. And every
loop multiplies the number of potential paths by the number of
different iteration values possible for the loop.
3. Defining complete testing:
1. Exercise every path from entry to exit
2. Exercise every statement or instruction at least once
3. Exercise every branch and case statement, in each
direction at least once
4. If prescription 1 is followed then 2 and 3 are automatically followed.
But it is impractical for most routines. It can be done for the
routines that have no loops, in which it is equivalent to 2 and 3
prescriptions.
5. EXAMPLE:Here is the correct version.

For X negative, the output is X + A, while for X greater than or

equal to zero, the output is X + 2A. Following prescription 2 and
executing every statement, but not every branch, would not reveal
the bug in the following incorrect version:
 A negative value produces the correct answer. Every statement
can be executed, but if the test cases do not force each branch to
be taken, the bug can remain hidden. The next example uses a test
based on executing each branch but does not force the execution
of all statements:

The hidden loop around label 100 is not revealed by tests based on
prescription 3 alone because no test forces the execution of
statement 100 and the following GOTO statement. Furthermore,
label 100 is not flagged by the compiler as an unreferenced label
and the subsequent GOTO does not refer to an undefined label.

6. A Static Analysis (that is, an analysis based on examining the

source code or structure) cannot determine whether a piece of
code is or is not reachable. There could be subroutine calls with
parameters that are subroutine labels, or in the above example
there could be a GOTO that targeted label 100 but could never
achieve a value that would send the program to that label.
7. Only a Dynamic Analysis (that is, an analysis based on the code's
behavior while running - which is to say, to all intents and
purposes, testing) can determine whether code is reachable or not
and therefore distinguish between the ideal structure we think we
have and the actual, buggy structure.
 4. PATH TESTING CRITERIA:
1. Any testing strategy based on paths must at least both exercise
every instruction and take branches in all directions.
2. A set of tests that does this is not complete in an absolute sense,
but it is complete in the sense that anything less must leave
something untested.
3. So we have explored three different testing criteria or strategies out
of a potentially infinite family of strategies.
1. Path Testing (Pinf):

 Execute all possible control flow paths through

the program: typically, this is restricted to all
possible entry/exit paths through the program.
 If we achieve this prescription, we are said to
have achieved 100% path coverage. This is
the strongest criterion in the path testing
strategy family: it is generally impossible to
achieve.
2. Statement Testing (P1):
 Execute all statements in the program at least
once under some test. If we do enough tests
to achieve this, we are said to have achieved
100% statement coverage.
 An alternate equivalent characterization is to
say that we have achieved 100% node
coverage. We denote this by C1.
 This is the weakest criterion in the family:
testing less than this for new software is
unconscionable (unprincipled or can not be
accepted) and should be criminalized.
3. Branch Testing (P2):
 Execute enough tests to assure that every
branch alternative has been exercised at least
once under some test.
 If we do enough tests to achieve this
prescription, then we have achieved 100%
branch coverage.
 An alternative characterization is to say that
we have achieved 100% link coverage.
 For structured software, branch testing and
therefore branch coverage strictly includes
statement coverage.
 We denote branch coverage by C2.
 Commonsense and Strategies:
1. Branch and statement coverage are accepted today as
the minimum mandatory testing requirement.
2. The question "why not use a judicious sampling of
paths?, what is wrong with leaving some code,
untested?" is ineffectual in the view of common sense
and experience since: (1.) Not testing a piece of a code
leaves a residue of bugs in the program in proportion to
the size of the untested code and the probability of
bugs. (2.)The high probability paths are always
thoroughly tested if only to demonstrate that the system
works properly.
3. Which paths to be tested? You must pick enough
paths to achieve C1+C2. The question of what is the
fewest number of such paths is interesting to the
designer of test tools that help automate the path testing,
but it is not crucial to the pragmatic (practical) design of
tests. It is better to make many simple paths than a few
complicated paths.
4. Path Selection Example:

Figure 2.9: An example flowgraph to

explain path selection

5. Practical Suggestions in Path Testing:

 Draw the control flow graph on a single sheet

of paper.
 Make several copies - as many as you will
need for coverage (C1+C2) and several more.
 Use a yellow highlighting marker to trace
paths. Copy the paths onto a master sheets.
 Continue tracing paths until all lines on the
master sheet are covered, indicating that you
appear to have achieved C1+C2.
 As you trace the paths, create a table that
shows the paths, the coverage status of each
process, and each decision.
 The above paths lead to the following table
considering Figure 2.9:

 After you have traced a a covering path set on

the master sheet and filled in the table for
every path, check the following:
1. Does every decision have a YES
and a NO in its column? (C2)
2. Has every case of all case
statements been marked? (C2)
3. Is every three - way branch (less,
equal, greater) covered? (C2)
4. Is every link (process) covered at
least once? (C1)
  Revised Path Selection Rules:

1. Pick the simplest, functionally

sensible entry/exit path.
2. Pick additional paths as small
variation from previous paths. Pick
paths that do not have loops rather
than paths that do. Favor short
paths that make sense over paths
that don't.
3. Pick additional paths that have no
obvious functional meaning only if
it's necessary to provide coverage.
4. Be comfortable with your chosen
paths. Play your hunches (guesses)
and give your intuition free reign as
long as you achieve C1+C2.
5. Don't follow rules slavishly (blindly) -
except for coverage.

PREDICATES, PATH PREDICATES AND ACHIEVABLE PATHS:

 PREDICATE: The logical function evaluated at a

decision is called Predicate. The direction taken at a
decision depends on the value of decision variable.
Some examples are: A>0, x+y>=90.......
 PATH PREDICATE: A predicate associated with a
path is called a Path Predicate. For example, "x is
greater than zero", "x+y>=90", "w is either negative or
equal to 10 is true" is a sequence of predicates
whose truth values will cause the routine to take a
specific path.
 MULTIWAY BRANCHES:
 The path taken through a multiway branch
such as a computed GOTO's, case
statement, or jump tables cannot be
directly expressed in TRUE/FALSE terms.
 Although, it is possible to describe such
alternatives by using multi valued logic, an
expedient (practical approach) is to
 express multiway branches as an
equivalent set of if..then..else statements.
 For example a three way case statement
can be written as: If case=1 DO A1 ELSE
(IF Case=2 DO A2 ELSE DO A3
ENDIF)ENDIF.
 INPUTS:
 In testing, the word input is not restricted to
direct inputs, such as variables in a
subroutine call, but includes all data objects
referenced by the routine whose values are
fixed prior to entering it.
 For example, inputs in a calling sequence,
objects in a data structure, values left in
registers, or any combination of object
types.
 The input for a particular test is mapped as
a one dimensional array called as an Input
Vector.
 PREDICATE INTERPRETATION:
 The simplest predicate depends only on
input variables.
 For example if x1,x2 are inputs, the
predicate might be x1+x2>=7, given the
values of x1 and x2 the direction taken
through the decision is based on the
predicate is determined at input time and
does not depend on processing.
 Another example, assume a predicate
x1+y>=0 that along a path prior to reaching
this predicate we had the assignement
statement y=x2+7. although our predicate
depends on processing, we can substitute
the symbolic expression for y to obtain an
equivalent predicate x1+x2+7>=0.
 The act of symbolic substitution of
operations along the path in order to
express the predicate solely in terms of the
input vector is called predicate
interpretation.
 Some times the interpretation may depend
on the path; for example,
 INPUT X
 ON X GOTO A, B, C, ...
 A: Z := 7 @ GOTO HEM
  B: Z := -7 @ GOTO HEM
 C: Z := 0 @ GOTO HEM
 .........
 HEM: DO SOMETHING
 .........
 HEN: IF Y + Z > 0 GOTO
ELL ELSE GOTO EMM
The predicate interpretation at HEN depends on the path
we took through the first multiway branch. It yields for the
three cases respectively, if Y+7>0, Y-7>0, Y>0.

 The path predicates are the specific form of

the predicates of the decisions along the
selected path after interpretation.
 INDEPENDENCE OF VARIABLES AND
PREDICATES:
 The path predicates take on truth values
based on the values of input variables,
either directly or indirectly.
 If a variable's value does not change as a
result of processing, that variable is
independent of the processing.
 If the variable's value can change as a
result of the processing, the variable is
process dependent.
 A predicate whose truth value can change
as a result of the processing is said to
be process dependent and one whose
truth value does not change as a result of
the processing is process independent.
 Process dependence of a predicate does
not always follow from dependence of the
input variables on which that predicate is
based.
 CORRELATION OF VARIABLES AND
PREDICATES:
 Two variables are correlated if every
combination of their values cannot be
independently specified.
 Variables whose values can be specified
independently without restriction are called
uncorrelated.
  A pair of predicates whose outcomes
depend on one or more variables in
common are said to be correlated
predicates.
For example, the predicate X==Y is
followed by another predicate X+Y == 8. If
we select X and Y values to satisfy the first
predicate, we might have forced the 2nd
predicate's truth value to change.
 Every path through a routine is achievable
only if all the predicates in that routine are
uncorrelated.
 PATH PREDICATE EXPRESSIONS:
 A path predicate expression is a set of
boolean expressions, all of which must be
satisfied to achieve the selected path.
 Example:
 X1+3X2+17>=0
 X3=17
 X4-X1>=14X2

 Any set of input values that satisfy all of the

conditions of the path predicate expression
will force the routine to the path.
 Some times a predicate can have an OR in
it.
 Example:

A: X5 > 0 E: X6 < 0
B: X1 + 3X2 + 17 >= 0 B: X1 + 3X2 + 17 >= 0
C: X3 = 17 C: X3 = 17
D: X4 - X1 >= 14X2 D: X4 - X1 >= 14X2


 Boolean algebra notation to denote the
boolean expression: 

ABCD+EBCD=(A+E)BCD

 PREDICATE COVERAGE:
 Compound Predicate: Predicates of the
form A OR B, A AND B and more
complicated boolean expressions are
called as compound predicates.
  Some times even a simple predicate
becomes compound after interpretation.
Example: the predicate if (x=17) whose
opposite branch is if x.NE.17 which is
equivalent to x>17 . Or. X<17.
 Predicate coverage is being the achieving
of all possible combinations of truth values
corresponding to the selected path have
been explored under some test.
 As achieving the desired direction at a
given decision could still hide bugs in the
associated predicates.
 TESTING BLINDNESS:
 Testing Blindness is a pathological
(harmful) situation in which the desired
path is achieved for the wrong reason.
 There are three types of Testing Blindness:

 Assignment Blindness:
1. Assignment blindness occurs when
the buggy predicate appears to work
correctly because the specific value
chosen for an assignment statement
works with both the correct and
incorrect predicate.
2. For Example:

Correct Buggy
X=7 X=7
........ ........
if Y > 0 then ... if X+Y > 0 then ...

3. If the test case sets Y=1 the desired

path is taken in either case, but
there is still a bug.
 Equality Blindness:
1. Equality blindness occurs when the
path selected by a prior predicate
results in a value that works both for
the correct and buggy predicate.
2. For Example:

Correct Buggy
if Y = 2 then  if Y = 2 then
........ ........
 if X+Y > 3 then ... if X > 1 then ...

3. The first predicate if y=2 forces the

rest of the path, so that for any
positive value of x. the path taken at
the second predicate will be the
same for the correct and buggy
version.
 Self Blindness:
1. Self blindness occurs when the
buggy predicate is a multiple of the
correct predicate and as a result is
indistinguishable along that path.
2. For Example:

Correct Buggy
X=A X=A
........ ........
if X-1 > 0 then ... if X+A-2 > 0 then ...

3. The assignment (x=a) makes the

predicates multiples of each other,
so the direction taken is the same
for the correct and buggy version.

PATH SENSITIZING:

2. REVIEW: ACHIEVABLE AND UNACHIEVABLE

PATHS:
 We want to select and test enough paths to
achieve a satisfactory notion of test
completeness such as C1+C2.
 Extract the programs control flowgraph and
select a set of tentative covering paths.
 For any path in that set, interpret the
predicates along the path as needed to
express them in terms of the input vector.
 In general individual predicates are
compound or may become compound as a
result of interpretation.
 Trace the path through, multiplying the
individual compound predicates to achieve
a boolean expression such as

(A+BC) (D+E) (FGH) (IJ) (K) (l) (L).

 Multiply out the expression to achieve a

sum of products form:

ADFGHIJKL+AEFGHIJKL+BCDFGHIJKL+BCEFGHIJ
KL

 Each product term denotes a set of

inequalities that if solved will yield an input
vector that will drive the routine along the
designated path.
 Solve any one of the inequality sets for the
chosen path and you have found a set of
input values for the path.
 If you can find a solution, then the path is
achievable.
 If you cant find a solution to any of the sets
of inequalities, the path is un achievable.
 The act of finding a set of solutions to the
path predicate expression is called PATH
SENSITIZATION.
3. HEURISTIC PROCEDURES FOR SENSITIZING
PATHS:
 This is a workable approach, instead of
selecting the paths without considering how
to sensitize, attempt to choose a covering
path set that is easy to sensitize and pick
hard to sensitize paths only as you must to
achieve coverage.
 Identify all variables that affect the
decision.
 Classify the predicates as dependent or
independent.
 Start the path selection with un correlated,
independent predicates.
 If coverage has not been achieved using
independent uncorrelated predicates,
 extend the path set using correlated
predicates.
 If coverage has not been achieved extend
the cases to those that involve dependent
predicates.
 Last, use correlated, dependent predicates.

PATH INSTRUMENTATION:

4. PATH INSTRUMENTATION:
 Path instrumentation is what we have to do
to confirm that the outcome was achieved
by the intended path.
 Co-incidental Correctness: The
coincidental correctness stands for
achieving the desired outcome for wrong
reason. 

5. Figure 2.11: Coincidental Correctness

6. The above figure is an example of a routine that, for
the (unfortunately) chosen input value (X = 16), yields the
same outcome (Y = 2) no matter which case we select.
Therefore, the tests chosen this way will not tell us whether
we have achieved coverage. For example, the five cases
could be totally jumbled and still the outcome would be the
same. Path Instrumentation is what we have to do to
confirm that the outcome was achieved by the intended
path.
 The types of instrumentation methods
include:
 Interpretive Trace Program:
1. An interpretive trace program is one
that executes every statement in
order and records the intermediate
values of all calculations, the
statement labels traversed etc.
2. If we run the tested routine under a
trace, then we have all the
information we need to confirm the
outcome and, furthermore, to
confirm that it was achieved by the
intended path.
3. The trouble with traces is that they
give us far more information than we
need. In fact, the typical trace
program provides so much
information that confirming the path
from its massive output dump is
more work than simulating the
computer by hand to confirm the
path.
 Traversal Marker or Link Marker:
1. A simple and effective form of
instrumentation is called a traversal
marker or link marker.
2. Name every link by a lower case
letter.
3. Instrument the links so that the link's
name is recorded when the link is
executed.
4. The succession of letters produced
in going from the routine's entry to
its exit should, if there are no bugs,
exactly correspond to the path
name. 
  Figure 2.12: Single Link
Marker Instrumentation
1. Why Single Link Markers aren't
enough: Unfortunately, a single link
marker may not do the trick because
links can be chewed by open bugs. 

 Figure 2.13: Why Single

Link Markers aren't
enough.
 We intended to traverse the ikm path,
but because of a rampaging GOTO in
the middle of the m link, we go to
process B. If coincidental correctness is
against us, the outcomes will be the
same and we won't know about the
bug.
 Two Link Marker Method:
1. The solution to the problem of single
link marker method is to implement
two markers per link: one at the
beginning of each link and on at the
end.
 2. The two link markers now specify
the path name and confirm both the
beginning and end of the link. 

 Figure 2.14: Double

Link Marker
Instrumentation.
 Link Counter: A less disruptive (and less
informative) instrumentation method is based
on counters. Instead of a unique link name to
be pushed into a string when the link is
traversed, we simply increment a link counter.
We now confirm that the path length is as
expected. The same problem that led us to
double link markers also leads us to double
link counters.