NTRODUCTION:

This unit gives a brief introduction to testing, the need for testing, types of bugs and their
consequences.
At the end of this unit, the student will be able to:

• Understand the importance of testing and debugging.

• Interpret a model for testing and understand the process of testing.
• Discuss the limitations of testing.
• Identify the consequences and understand the importance of bugs.
• Classify the bugs into different categories.

PURPOSE OF TESTING:

• Testing consumes atleast half of the time and work required to produce a functional
program.
• MYTH: Good programmers write code without bugs. (Its wrong!!!)
• History says that even well written programs still have 1-3 bugs per hundred statements.
• Productivity and Quality in software:
o In production of comsumer goods and other products, every manufacturing
stage is subjected to quality control and testing from component to final stage.
o If flaws are discovered at any stage, the product is either discarded or cycled
back for rework and correction.
o Productivity is measured by the sum of the costs of the material, the rework,
and the discarded componenets, and the cost of quality assurance and testing.
o There is a trade off between quality assurance costs and manufacturing costs:
If sufficient time is not spent in quality assurance, the reject rate will be high and
so will be the net cost. If inspection is good and all errors are caught as they
occur, inspection costs will dominate, and again the net cost will suffer.
o Testing and Quality assurance costs for 'manufactured' items can be as low as
2% in consumer products or as high as 80% in products such as space-ships,
nuclear reactors, and aircrafts, where failures threaten life. Where as the
manufacturing cost of a software is trivial.
o The biggest part of software cost is the cost of bugs: the cost of detecting them,
the cost of correcting them, the cost of designing tests that discover them, and
the cost of running those tests.
o For software, quality and productivity are indistinguishable because the cost of
a software copy is trivial.
• Testing and Test Design are parts of quality assurance should also focus on bug
prevention.
• Phases in a tester's mental life can be categorised into the following 5 phases:
. Phase 0: (Until 1956: Debugging Oriented) There is no difference between
testing and debugging. Phase 0 thinking was the norm in early days of software
development till testing emerged as a discipline.
. Phase 1: (1957-1978: Demonstration Oriented) The purpose of testing here is
to show that software works. Highlighted during the late 1970s. This failed
because the probability of showing that software works 'decreases' as testing
increases. The more you test, the more likely you'ill find a bug.
. Phase 2: (1979-1982: Destruction Oriented) The purpose of testing is to show
that software doesnt work. This also failed because the software will never get
 released as you will find one bug or the other. Also, a bug corrected may also
lead to another bug.
. Phase 3: (1983-1987: Evaluation Oriented) The purpose of testing is not to
prove anything but to reduce the perceived risk of not working to an acceptable
value (Statistical Quality Control). Notion is that testing does improve the
product to the extent that testing catches bugs and to the extent that those
bugs are fixed. The product is released when the confidence on that product is
high enough. (Note: This is applied to large software products with millions of
code and years of use.)
. Phase 4: (1988-2000: Prevention Oriented) Testability is the factor considered
here. One reason is to reduce the labour of testing. Other reason is to check the
testable and non-testable code. Testable code has fewer bugs than the code
that's hard to test. Identifying the testing techniques to test the code is the main
key here.
• Test Design: We know that the software code must be designed and tested, but many
appear to be unaware that tests themselves must be designed and tested. Tests should be
properly designed and tested before applying it to the acutal code.
• There are approaches other than testing to create better software.
Methods other than testing include:
. Inspection Methods: Methods like walkthroughs, deskchecking, formal
inspections and code reading appear to be as effective as testing but the bugs
caught donot completely overlap.
. Design Style: While designing the software itself, adopting stylistic objectives
such as testability, openness and clarity can do much to prevent bugs.
. Static Analysis Methods: Includes formal analysis of source code during
compilation. In earlier days, it is a routine job of the programmer to do that.
Now, the compilers have taken over that job.
. Languages: The source language can help reduce certain kinds of bugs.
Programmers find new bugs while using new languages.
. Development Methodologies and Development Environment: The
development process and the environment in which that methodology is
embedded can prevent many kinds of bugs.

DICHOTOMIES:

• Testing Versus Debugging: Many people consider both as same. Purpose of testing is to
show that a program has bugs. The purpose of testing is to find the error or misconception
that led to the program's failure and to design and implement the program changes that
correct the error.
• Debugging usually follows testing, but they differ as to goals, methods and most important
psychology. The below tab le shows few important differences between testing and
debugging.

Testing Debugging
Testing starts with known conditions, uses Debugging starts from possibly unknown intial
predefined procedures and has predictable conditions and the end can not be predicted except
outcomes. statistically.
Testing can and should be planned, designed Procedure and duration of debugging cannot be so
and scheduled. constrained.
 Testing is a demonstration of error or apparent
Debugging is a deductive process.
correctness.
Debugging is the programmer's vindication
Testing proves a programmer's failure.
(Justification).
Testing, as executes, should strive to be
Debugging demands intutive leaps, experimentation
predictable, dull, constrained, rigid and
and freedom.
inhuman.
Much testing can be done without design Debugging is impossible without detailed design
knowledge. knowledge.
Testing can often be done by an outsider. Debugging must be done by an insider.
Much of test execution and design can be
Automated debugging is still a dream.
automated.

• Function Versus Structure: Tests can be designed from a functional or a structural point
of view. In functional testing, the program or system is treated as a blackbox. It is
subjected to inputs, and its outputs are verified for conformance to specified behaviour.
Functional testing takes the user point of view- bother about functionality and features and
not the program's implementation. Structural testing does look at the implementation
details. Things such as programming style, control method, source language, database
design, and coding details dominate structural testing.
• Both Structural and functional tests are useful, both have limitations, and both target
different kinds of bugs. Functional tets can detect all bugs but would take infinite time to
do so. Structural tests are inherently finite but cannot detect all errors even if completely
executed.
• Designer Versus Tester: Test designer is the person who designs the tests where as the
tester is the one actually tests the code. During functional testing, the designer and tester
are probably different persons. During unit testing, the tester and the programmer merge
into one person.
• Tests designed and executed by the software designers are by nature biased towards
structural consideration and therefore suffer the limitations of structural testing.
• Modularity Versus Efficiency: A module is a discrete, well-defined, small component of a
system. Smaller the modules, difficult to integrate; larger the modules, difficult to
understand. Both tests and systems can be modular. Testing can and should likewise be
organised into modular components. Small, independent test cases can be designed to
test independent modules.
• Small Versus Large: Programming in large means constructing programs that consists of
many components written by many different programmers. Programming in the small is
what we do for ourselves in the privacy of our own offices. Qualitative and Quantitative
changes occur with size and so must testing methods and quality criteria.
• Builder Versus Buyer: Most software is written and used by the same organization.
Unfortunately, this situation is dishonest because it clouds accountability. If there is no
separation between builder and buyer, there can be no accountability.
• The different roles / users in a system include:
1. Builder: Who designs the system and is accountable to the buyer.
2. Buyer: Who pays for the system in the hope of profits from providing services.
3. User: Ultimate beneficiary or victim of the system. The user's interests are also
guarded by.
4. Tester: Who is dedicated to the builder's destruction.
5. Operator: Who has to live with the builders' mistakes, the buyers' murky
(unclear) specifications, testers' oversights and the users' complaints.
MODEL FOR TESTING:

Above figure is a model of testing process. It includes three models: A model of the
environment, a model of the program and a model of the expected bugs.

• ENVIRONMENT:
o A Program's environment is the hardware and software required to make it run.
For online systems, the environment may include communication lines, other
systems, terminals and operators.
o The environment also includes all programs that interact with and are used to
create the program under test - such as OS, linkage editor, loader, compiler,
utility routines.
o Because the hardware and firmware are stable, it is not smart to blame the
environment for bugs.
• PROGRAM:
o Most programs are too complicated to understand in detail.
o The concept of the program is to be simplified inorder to test it.
o If simple model of the program doesnot explain the unexpected behaviour, we
may have to modify that model to include more facts and details. And if that
fails, we may have to modify the program.
• BUGS:
o Bugs are more insidious (deceiving but harmful) than ever we expect them to
be.
o An unexpected test result may lead us to change our notion of what a bug is
and our model of bugs.
 o Some optimistic notions that many programmers or testers have about bugs
are usually unable to test effectively and unable to justify the dirty tests most
programs need.
o OPTIMISTIC NOTIONS ABOUT BUGS:
1. Benign Bug Hypothesis: The belief that bugs are nice, tame and
logical. (Benign: Not Dangerous)
2. Bug Locality Hypothesis: The belief that a bug discovered with in a
component effects only that component's behaviour.
3. Control Bug Dominance: The belief that errors in the control
structures (if, switch etc) of programs dominate the bugs.
4. Code / Data Separation: The belief that bugs respect the separation
of code and data.
5. Lingua Salvator Est: The belief that the language syntax and
semantics (e.g. Structured Coding, Strong typing, etc) eliminates
most bugs.
6. Corrections Abide: The mistaken belief that a corrected bug
remains corrected.
7. Silver Bullets: The mistaken belief that X (Language, Design method,
representation, environment) grants immunity from bugs.
8. Sadism Suffices: The common belief (especially by independent
tester) that a sadistic streak, low cunning, and intuition are sufficient
to eliminate most bugs. Tough bugs need methodology and
techniques.
9. Angelic Testers: The belief that testers are better at test design than
programmers are at code design.
• TESTS:
o Tests are formal procedures, Inputs must be prepared, Outcomes should
predicted, tests should be documented, commands need to be executed, and
results are to be observed.
o We do three distinct kinds of testing on a typical software system. They are:
1. Unit / Component Testing: A Unit is the smallest testable piece of
software that can be compiled, assembled, linked, loaded etc. A unit
is usually the work of one programmer and consists of several
hundred or fewer lines of code. Unit Testing is the testing we do to
show that the unit does not satisfy its functional specification or that
its implementation structure does not match the intended design
structure. A Component is an integrated aggregate of one or more
units. Component Testing is the testing we do to show that the
component does not satisfy its functional specification or that its
implementation structure does not match the intended design
structure.
2. Integration Testing: Integration is the process by which
components are aggregated to create larger
components. Integration Testing is testing done to show that even
though the componenets were individually satisfactory (after
passing component testing), checks the combination of
components are incorrect or inconsistent.
3. System Testing: A System is a big component. System Testing is
aimed at revealing bugs that cannot be attributed to components. It
includes testing for performance, security, accountability,
configuration sensitivity, startup and recovery.
• Role of Models: The art of testing consists of creating , selecting, exploring, and revising
models. Our ability to go through this process depends on the number of different models
we have at hand and their ability to express a program's behaviour.
• PLAYING POOL AND CONSULTING ORACLES
 o Testing is like playing a pool game. Either you hit the ball to any pocket (kiddie
pool) or you specify the pocket in advance (real pool). So is the testing. There is
kiddie testing and real testing. In kiddie testing, the observed outcome will be
considered as the expected outcome. In Real testing, the outcome is predicted
and documented before the test is run.
o The tester who cannot make that kind of predictions does not understand the
program's functional objectives.
o Oracles: An oracle is any program, process, or body of data that specifies the
expected outcome of a set of tests as applied to a tested object. Example of
oracle : Input/Outcome Oracle - an oracle that specifies the expected outcome
for a specified input.
o Sources of Oracles: If every test designer had to analyze and predict the
expected behaviour for every test case for every component, then test design
would be very expensive. The hardest part of test design is predicting the
expected outcome, but we often have oracles that reduce the work. They are:
1. Kiddie Testing: run the test and see what comes out. If you have the
outcome in front of you, and especially if you have the values of the
internal variables, then it is much easier to validate that outcome by
analysis and show it to be correct than it is to predict what the
outcome should be and validate your prediction.
2. Regression Test Suites: Today's software development and testing
are dominated not by the design of new software but by rework and
maintenance of existing software. In such instances, most of the
tests you need will have been run on a previous versions. Most of
those tests should have the same outcome for the new version.
Outcome prediction is therefore needed only for changed parts of
components.
3. Purchased Suits and Oracles: Highly standardized software that
differ only as to implementation often has commercially available
test suites and oracles. The most common examples are compilers
for standard languages.
4. Existing Program: A working, trusted program is an excellent oracle.
The typical use is when the program is being rehosted to a new
language, operating system, environment, configuration with the
intention that the behavior should not change as a result of the
rehosting.
• IS COMPLETE TESTING POSSIBLE?
o If the objective of the testing were to prove that a program is free of bugs, then
testing not only would be practically impossible, but also would be theoretically
impossible.
o Three different approaches can be used to demonstrate that a program is
correct.They are:
1. Functional Testing:
■ Every program operates on a finite number of inputs. A
complete functional test would consists of subjecting the
program to all possible input streams.
■ For each input the routine either accepts the stream and
produces a correct outcome, accepts the stream and
produces an incorrect outcome, or rejects the stream
and tells us that it did so.
■ For example, a 10 character input string has 280 possible
input streams and corresponding outcomes, so complete
functional testing in this sense is IMPRACTICAL.
 ■ But even theoritically, we can't execute a purely
functional test this way because we don't know the
length of the string to which the system is responding.
2. Structural Testing:
■ The design should have enough tests to ensure that
every path through the routine is exercised at least once.
Right off that's is impossible because some loops might
never terminate.
■ The number of paths through a small routine can be
awesome because each loop multiplies the path count
by the number of times through the loop.
■ A small routine can have millions or billions of paths, so
total Path Testing is usually IMPRACTICAL.
3. Formal Proofs of Correctness:
■ Formal proofs of correctness rely on a combination of
functional and structural concepts.
■ Requirements are stated in a formal language (e.g.
Mathematics) and each program statement is examined
and used in a step of an inductive proof that the routine
will produce the correct outcome for all possible input
sequences.
■ The IMPRACTICAL thing here is that such proofs are very
expensive and have been applied only to numerical
routines or to formal proofs for crucial software such as
system’s security kernel or portions of compilers.
o Each approach leads to the conclusion that complete testing, in the sense of a
proof is neither theoretically nor practically possible.
• THEORITICAL BARRIERS OF COMPLETE TESTING:
o "We can never be sure that the specifications are correct"
o "No verification system can verify every correct program"
o "We can never be certain that a verification system is correct"
• Not only all known approaches to absoulte demonstrations of correctness impractical, but
they are impossible. Therefore, our objective must shift from a absolute proof to a 'suitably
convincing' demonstration.

CONSEQUENCES OF BUGS:

• IMPORTANCE OF BUGS: The importance of bugs depends on frequency, correction cost,

installation cost, and consequences.
1. Frequency: How often does that kind of bug occur? Pay more attention to the
more frequent bug types.
2. Correction Cost: What does it cost to correct the bug after it is found? The cost
is the sum of 2 factors: (1) the cost of discovery (2) the cost of correction.
These costs go up dramatically later in the development cycle when the bug is
discovered. Correction cost also depends on system size.
3. Installation Cost: Installation cost depends on the number of installations: small
for a single user program but more for distributed systems. Fixing one bug and
distributing the fix could exceed the entire system's development cost.
4. Consequences: What are the consequences of the bug? Bug consequences
can range from mild to catastrophic.
 A reasonable metric for bug importance is

• CONSEQUENCES OF BUGS: The consequences of a bug can be measure in terms of

human rather than machine. Some consequences of a bug on a scale of one to ten are:
1. Mild: The symptoms of the bug offend us aesthetically (gently); a misspelled
output or a misaligned printout.
2. Moderate: Outputs are misleading or redundant. The bug impacts the system's
performance.
3. Annoying: The system's behaviour because of the bug is
dehumanizing. Names are truncated orarbitarily modified.
4. Disturbing: It refuses to handle legitimate (authorized / legal) transactions. The
ATM wont give you money. My credit card is declared invalid.
5. Serious: It loses track of its transactions. Not just the transaction itself but the
fact that the transaction occurred. Accountability is lost.
6. Very Serious: The bug causes the system to do the wrong transactions.
Instead of losing your paycheck, the system credits it to another account or
converts deposits to withdrawals.
7. Extreme: The problems aren't limited to a few users or to few transaction types.
They are frequent and arbitrary instead of sporadic infrequent) or for unusual
cases.
8. Intolerable: Long term unrecoverable corruption of the database occurs and
the corruption is not easily discovered. Serious consideration is given to
shutting the system down.
9. Catastrophic: The decision to shut down is taken out of our hands because the
system fails.
10. Infectious: What can be worse than a failed system? One that corrupt other
systems even though it doesnot fall in itself ; that erodes the social physical
environment; that melts nuclear reactors and starts war.
• FLEXIBLE SEVERITY RATHER THAN ABSOLUTES:
o Quality can be measured as a combination of factors, of which number of bugs
and their severity is only one component.
o Many organizations have designed and used satisfactory, quantitative, quality
metrics.
o Because bugs and their symptoms play a significant role in such metrics, as
testing progresses, you see the quality rise to a reasonable value which is
deemed to be safe to ship the product.
o The factors involved in bug severity are:
1. Correction Cost: Not so important because catastrophic bugs may
be corrected easier and small bugs may take major time to debug.
2. Context and Application Dependency: Severity depends on the
context and the application in which it is used.
3. Creating Culture Dependency: Whats important depends on the
creators of software and their cultural aspirations. Test tool vendors
are more sensitive about bugs in their software then games
software vendors.
4. User Culture Dependency: Severity also depends on user culture.
Naive users of PC software go crazy over bugs where as pros
(experts) may just ignore.
5. The software development phase: Severity depends on
development phase. Any bugs gets more severe as it gets closer to
field use and more severe the longer it has been around.
TAXONOMY OF BUGS:

• There is no universally correct way categorize bugs. The taxonomy is not rigid.
• A given bug can be put into one or another category depending on its history and the
programmer's state of mind.
• The major categories are: (1) Requirements, Features and Functionality Bugs (2) Structural
Bugs (3) Data Bugs (4) Coding Bugs (5) Interface, Integration and System Bugs (6) Test
and Test Design Bugs.

o REQUIREMENTS, FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY BUGS: Various

categories in Requirements, Features and Functionlity bugs include:
1. Requirements and Specifications Bugs:
■ Requirements and specifications developed from them
can be incomplete ambiguous, or self-contradictory.
They can be misunderstood or impossible to understand.
■ The specifications that don't have flaws in them may
change while the design is in progress. The features are
added, modified and deleted.
■ Requirements, especially, as expressed in specifications
are a major source of expensive bugs.
■ The range is from a few percentage to more than 50%,
depending on the application and environment.
■ What hurts most about the bugs is that they are the
earliest to invade the system and the last to leave.
2. Feature Bugs:
■ Specification problems usually create corresponding
feature problems.
■ A feature can be wrong, missing, or superfluous (serving
no useful purpose). A missing feature or case is easier to
detect and correct. A wrong feature could have deep
design implications.
■ Removing the features might complicate the software,
consume more resources, and foster more bugs.
3. Feature Interaction Bugs:
■ Providing correct, clear, implementable and testable
feature specifications is not enough.
■ Features usually come in groups or related features. The
features of each group and the interaction of features
with in the group are usually well tested.
■ The problem is unpredictable interactions between
feature groups or even between individual features. For
example, your telephone is provided with call holding and
call forwarding. The interactions between these two
features may have bugs.
■ Every application has its peculiar set of features and a
much bigger set of unspecified feature interaction
potentials and therefore result in feature interaction bugs.

Specification and Feature Bug Remedies:

 ■ Most feature bugs are rooted in human to human communication
problems. One solution is to use high-level, formal specification
languages or systems.
■ Such languages and systems provide short term support but in the
long run, does not solve the problem.
■ Specification languages facilitate formalization
of requirements and inconsistency and ambiguity analysis.
■ Assume that we have a great specification
language and that can be used to create unambiguous, complete
specifications with unambiguous complete testsand consistent test
criteria.
■ The specification problem has been shifted to a higher level but not
eliminated.

Testing Techniques for functional bugs: Most functional test techniques- that
is those techniques which are based on a behavioral description of software,
such as transaction flow testing, syntax testing, domain testing, logic testing
and state testing are useful in testing functional bugs.

o STRUCTURAL BUGS: Various categories in Structural bugs include:

. Control and Sequence Bugs:
■ Control and sequence bugs include paths left out,
unreachable code, improper nesting of loops, loop-back
or loop termination criteria incorrect, missing process
steps, duplicated processing, unnecessary processing,
rampaging, GOTO's, ill-conceived (not properly planned)
switches, sphagetti code, and worst of all, pachinko
code.
■ One reason for control flow bugs is that this area is
amenable (supportive) to theoritical treatment.
■ Most of the control flow bugs are easily tested and
caught in unit testing.
■ Another reason for control flow bugs is that use of old
code especially ALP & COBOL code are dominated by
control flow bugs.
■ Control and sequence bugs at all levels are caught by
testing, especially structural testing, more specifically
path testing combined with a bottom line functional test
based on a specification.
. Logic Bugs:
■ Bugs in logic, especially those related to misundertanding
how case statements and logic operators behave singly
and combinations
■ Also includes evaluation of boolean expressions in
deeply nested IF-THEN-ELSE constructs.
■ If the bugs are parts of logical (i.e. boolean) processing
not related to control flow, they are characterized as
processing bugs.
■ If the bugs are parts of a logical expression (i.e
control-flow statement) which is used to direct the
control flow, then they are categorized as control-flow
bugs.
. Processing Bugs:
 ■ Processing bugs include arithmetic bugs, algebraic,
mathematical function evaluation, algorithm selection
and general processing.
■ Examples of Processing bugs include: Incorrect
conversion from one data representation to other,
ignoring overflow, improper use of grater-than-or-eual
etc
■ Although these bugs are frequent (12%), they tend to be
caught in good unit testing.
. Initialization Bugs:
■ Initialization bugs are common. Initialization bugs can be
improper and superfluous.
■ Superfluous bugs are generally less harmful but can
affect performance.
■ Typical initialization bugs include: Forgetting to initialize
the variables before first use, assuming that they are
initialized elsewhere, initializing to the wrong format,
representation or type etc
■ Explicit declaration of all variables, as in Pascal, can
reduce some initialization problems.
. Data-Flow Bugs and Anomalies:
■ Most initialization bugs are special case of data flow
anamolies.
■ A data flow anomaly occurs where there is a path along
which we expect to do something unreasonable with
data, such as using an uninitialized variable, attempting
to use a variable before it exists, modifying and then not
storing or using the result, or initializing twice without an
intermediate use.

o DATA BUGS:
■ Data bugs include all bugs that arise from the specification of data
objects, their formats, the number of such objects, and their initial
values.
■ Data Bugs are atleast as common as bugs in code, but they are
foten treated as if they didnot exist at all.
■ Software is evolving towards programs in
which more and more of the control and processing functions are
stored in tables.
■ Because of this, there is an increasing awareness that bugs in code
are only half the battle and the data problems should be given equal
attention.
■ Dynamic Data Vs Static data:
■ Dynamic data are transitory. Whatever their purpose their
lifetime is relatively short, typically the processing time of
one transaction. A storage object may be used to hold
dynamic data of different types, with different formats,
attributes and residues.
■ Dynamic data bugs are due to leftover garbage in a
shared resource. This can be handled in one of the three
ways: (1) Clean up after the use by the user (2) Common
Cleanup by the resource manager (3) No Clean up
 ■ Static Data are fixed in form and content. They appear in
the source code or database directly or indirectly, for
example a number, a string of characters, or a bit pattern.
■ Compile time processing will solve the bugs caused by
static data.
■ Information, parameter, and control: Static or dynamic data can
serve in one of three roles, or in combination of roles: as a
parameter, for control, or for information.
■ Content, Structure and Attributes: Content can be an actual bit
pattern, character string, or number put into a data structure.
Content is a pure bit pattern and has no meaning unless it is
interpreted by a hardware or software processor. All data bugs
result in the corruption or misinterpretation of
content. Structure relates to the size, shape and numbers that
describe the data object, that is memory location used to store the
content. (e.g A two dimensional array). Attributes relates to the
specification meaning that is the semantics associated with the
contents of a data object. (e.g. an integer, an alphanumeric string, a
subroutine).

o CODING BUGS:
■ Coding errors of all kinds can create any of the other kind of bugs.
■ Syntax errors are generally not important in the scheme of things if
the source language translator has adequate syntax checking.
■ If a program has many syntax errors, then we should expect many
logic and coding bugs.
■ The documentation bugs are also considered as coding bugs which
may mislead the maintenance programmers.

o INTERFACE, INTEGRATION, AND SYSTEM BUGS:

■ Various categories of bugs in Interface, Integration, and System
Bugs are:
. External Interfaces:
■ The external interfaces are the means used to
communicate with the world.
■ These include devices, actuators, sensors,
input terminals, printers, and communication
lines.
■ The primary design criterion for an interface
with outside world should be robustness.
■ All external interfaces, human or machine
should employ a protocol. The protocol may
be wrong or incorrectly implemented.
■ Other external interface bugs are: invalid
timing or sequence assumptions related to
external signals
■ Misunderstanding external input or output
formats.
■ Insufficient tolerance to bad input data.
. Internal Interfaces:
■ Internal interfaces are in principle not different
from external interfaces but they are more
controlled.
■ A best example for internal interfaces are
communicating routines.
■ The external environment is fixed and the
system must adapt to it but the internal
environment, which consists of interfaces
with other components, can be negotiated.
■ Internal interfaces have the same problem as
external interfaces.
. Hardware Architecture:
■ Bugs related to hardware architecture
originate mostly from misunderstanding how
the hardware works.
■ Examples of hardware architecture bugs:
address generation error, i/o device operation
/ instruction error, waiting too long for a
response, incorrect interrupt handling etc.
■ The remedy for hardware architecture and
interface problems is two fold: (1) Good
Programming and Testing (2) Centralization of
hardware interface software in programs
written by hardware interface specialists.
. Operating System Bugs:
■ Program bugs related to the operating system
are a combination of hardware architecture
and interface bugs mostly caused by a
misunderstanding of what it is the operating
system does.
■ Use operating system interface specialists,
and use explicit interface modules or macros
for all operating system calls.
■ This approach may not eliminate the bugs but
at least will localize them and make testing
easier.
. Software Architecture:
■ Software architecture bugs are the kind that
called - interactive.
■ Routines can pass unit and integration testing
without revealing such bugs.
■ Many of them depend on load, and their
symptoms emerge only when the system is
stressed.
■ Sample for such bugs: Assumption that there
will be no interrupts, Failure to block or un
block interrupts, Assumption that memory and
registers were initialized or not initialized etc
■ Careful integration of modules and subjecting
the final system to a stress test are effective
methods for these bugs.
. Control and Sequence Bugs (Systems Level):
■ These bugs include: Ignored timing, Assuming
that events occur in a specified sequence,
Working on data before all the data have
 arrived from disc, Waiting for an impossible
combination of prerequisites, Missing, wrong,
redundant or superfluous process steps.
■ The remedy for these bugs is highly structured
sequence control.
■ Specialize, internal, sequence control
mechanisms are helpful.
. Resource Management Problems:
■ Memory is subdivided into dynamically
allocated resources such as buffer blocks,
queue blocks, task control blocks, and overlay
buffers.
■ External mass storage units such as discs, are
subdivided into memory resource pools.
■ Some resource management and usage bugs:
Required resource not obtained, Wrong
resource used, Resource is already in use,
Resource dead lock etc
■ Resource Management Remedies: A design
remedy that prevents bugs is always
preferable to a test method that discovers
them.
■ The design remedy in resource management
is to keep the resource structure simple: the
fewest different kinds of resources, the
fewest pools, and no private resource
management.
. Integration Bugs:
■ Integration bugs are bugs having to do with
the integration of, and with the interfaces
between, working and tested components.
■ These bugs results from inconsistencies or
incompatibilities between components.
■ The communication methods include data
structures, call sequences, registers,
semaphores, communication links and
protocols results in integration bugs.
■ The integration bugs do not constitute a big
bug category(9%) they are expensive
category because they are usually caught late
in the game and because they force changes
in several components and/or data structures.
. System Bugs:
■ System bugs covering all kinds of bugs that
cannot be ascribed to a component or to their
simple interactions, but result from the totality
of interactions between many components
such as programs, data, hardware, and the
operating systems.
■ There can be no meaningful system testing
until there has been thorough component and
integration testing.
■ System bugs are infrequent(1.7%) but very
important because they are often found only
after the system has been fielded.
 ■ TEST AND TEST DESIGN BUGS:
■ Testing: testers have no immunity to bugs. Tests require
complicated scenarios and databases.
■ They require code or the equivalent to execute and
consequently they can have bugs.
■ Test criteria: if the specification is correct, it is correctly
interpreted and implemented, and a proper test has been
designed; but the criterion by which the software's
behavior is judged may be incorrect or impossible. So, a
proper test criteria has to be designed. The more
complicated the criteria, the likelier they are to have bugs.
■ Remedies: The remedies of test bugs are:
. Test Debugging: The first remedy for test
bugs is testing and debugging the tests. Test
debugging, when compared to program
debugging, is easier because tests, when
properly designed are simpler than programs
and donot have to make concessions to
efficiency.
. Test Quality Assurance: Programmers have
the right to ask how quality in independent
testing is monitored.
. Test Execution Automation: The history of
software bug removal and prevention is
indistinguishable from the history of
programming automation aids. Assemblers,
loaders, compilers are developed to reduce
the incidence of programming and operation
errors. Test execution bugs are virtually
eliminated by various test execution
automation tools.
. Test Design Automation: Just as much of
software development has been automated,
much test design can be and has been
automated. For a given productivity rate,
automation reduces the bug count - be it for
software or be it for tests.

BASICS OF PATH TESTING:

TOP

• 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.
• 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.
• 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:
■ The process boxes weren't really needed. There is an implied
process on every line joining junctions and decisions.
■ We don't need to know the specifics of the decisions, just the fact
that there is a branch.
■ The specific target label names aren't important-just the fact that
they exist. So we can replace them by simple numbers.
■ 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.
■ 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.
 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:
o Although graphical representations of flowgraphs are revealing, the details of
the control flow inside a program they are often inconvenient.
o 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.
o Linked List representation of Flow Graph:
• FLOWGRAPH - PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE:
o A flow graph is a pictorial representation of a program and not the program
itself, just as a topographic map.
o 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.
o The translation from a flowgraph element to a statement and vice versa is not
always unique. (See Figure 2.8)
 o 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:
o Flowcharts can be
. Handwritten by the programmer.
. Automatically produced by a flowcharting program based on a
mechanical analysis of the source code.
. 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.
o There are relatively few control flow graph generators.
• PATH TESTING - PATHS, NODES AND LINKS:
o 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.
o A path may go through several junctions, processes, or decisions, one or more
times.
o Paths consists of segments.
o The segment is a link - a single process that lies between two nodes.
o A path segment is succession of consecutive links that belongs to some path.
o 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.
o The name of a path is the name of the nodes along the path.
• FUNDAMENTAL PATH SELECTION CRITERIA:
o There are many paths between the entry and exit of a typical routine.
o 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.
o Defining complete testing:
. Exercise every path from entry to exit
. Exercise every statement or instruction at least once
. Exercise every branch and case statement, in each direction at least
once
o 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.
o 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.

o 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.
o 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.
• PATH TESTING CRITERIA:
o Any testing strategy based on paths must at least both exercise every
instruction and take branches in all directions.
o 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.
o So we have explored three different testing criteria or strategies out of a
potentially infinite family of strategies.
. 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.
. 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.
. 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.
o Commonsense and Strategies:
■ Branch and statement coverage are accepted today as the
minimum mandatory testing requirement.
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ Path Selection Example:
■ 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:
■ Pick the simplest, functionally sensible
entry/exit path.
■ 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.
■ Pick additional paths that have no obvious
functional meaning only if it's necessary to
provide coverage.
■ Be comfortable with your chosen paths. Play
your hunches (guesses) and give your
intuition free reign as long as you achieve
C1+C2.
■ Don't follow rules slavishly (blindly) - except
for coverage.
o LOOPS:
■ Cases for a single loop:A Single loop can be covered with two
cases: Looping and Not looping. But, experience shows that many
loop-related bugs are not discovered by C1+C2. Bugs hide
themselves in corners and congregate at boundaries - in the cases
of loops, at or around the minimum or maximum number of times
the loop can be iterated. The minimum number of iterations is often
zero, but it need not be.

. Try bypassing the loop (zero iterations). If you can't, you

either have a bug, or zero is not the minimum and you
have the wrong case.
. Could the loop-control variable be negative? Could it
appear to specify a negative number of iterations? What
happens to such a value?
. One pass through the loop.
. Two passes through the loop.
. A typical number of iterations, unless covered by a
previous test.
. One less than the maximum number of iterations.
. The maximum number of iterations.
. Attempt one more than the maximum number of
iterations. What prevents the loop-control variable from
having this value? What will happen with this value if it is
forced?

. Try one less than the expected minimum. What happens

if the loop control variable's value is less than the
minimum? What prevents the value from being less than
the minimum?
. The minimum number of iterations.
. One more than the minimum number of iterations.
. Once, unless covered by a previous test.
. Twice, unless covered by a previous test.
. A typical value.
 . One less than the maximum value.
. The maximum number of iterations.
. Attempt one more than the maximum number of
iterations.

■ Treat single loops with excluded values as two sets of

tests consisting of loops without excluded values, such
as case 1 and 2 above.
■ Example, the total range of the loop control variable was
1 to 20, but that values 7,8,9,10 were excluded. The two
sets of tests are 1-6 and 11-20.
■ The test cases to attempt would be 0,1,2,4,6,7 for the first
range and 10,11,15,19,20,21 for the second range.
■ Kinds of Loops:There are only three kinds of loops with respect to
path testing:
■ Nested Loops:
■ The number of tests to be performed on
nested loops will be the exponent of the tests
performed on single loops.
■ As we cannot always afford to test all
combinations of nested loops' iterations
values. Here's a tactic used to discard some
of these values:
1. Start at the inner most loop. Set all
the outer loops to their minimum
values.
2. Test the minimum, minimum+1,
typical, maximum-1 , and
maximum for the innermost loop,
while holding the outer loops at
their minimum iteration parameter
values. Expand the tests as
required for out of range and
excluded values.
3. If you've done the outmost loop,
GOTO step 5, else move out one
loop and set it up as in step 2 with
all other loops set to typical values.
4. Continue outward in this manner
until all loops have been covered.
5. Do all the cases for all loops in the
nest simultaneously.
■ Concatenated Loops:
■ Concatenated loops fall between single and
nested loops with respect to test cases. Two
loops are concatenated if it's possible to
reach one after exiting the other while still on
a path from entrance to exit.
■ If the loops cannot be on the same path, then
they are not concatenated and can be treated
as individual loops.
■ Horrible Loops:
■ A horrible loop is a combination of nested
loops, the use of code that jumps into and out
of loops, intersecting loops, hidden loops, and
cross connected loops.
■ Makes iteration value selection for test cases
an awesome and ugly task, which is another
reason such structures should be avoided.
 ■ Loop Testing TIme:
■ Any kind of loop can lead to long testing time, especially
if all the extreme value cases are to attempted (Max-1,
Max, Max+1).
■ This situation is obviously worse for nested and
dependent concatenated loops.
■ Consider nested loops in which testing the combination
of extreme values lead to long test times. Several options
to deal with:
■ Prove that the combined extreme cases are
hypothetically possible, they are not possible
in the real world
■ Put in limits or checks that prevent the
combined extreme cases. Then you have to
test the software that implements such safety
measures.

PREDICATES, PATH PREDICATES AND ACHIEVABLE PATHS:

o 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.......
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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

o 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.
o 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:
■ 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.
■ For Example:

Correct Buggy
X=7 X=7
........ ........
if Y > 0 then ... if X+Y > 0 then ...
 ■ If the test case sets Y=1 the desired path is
taken in either case, but there is still a bug.
. Equality Blindness:
■ Equality blindness occurs when the path
selected by a prior predicate results in a value
that works both for the correct and buggy
predicate.
■ For Example:

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

■ 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:
■ Self blindness occurs when the buggy
predicate is a multiple of the correct predicate
and as a result is indistinguishable along that
path.
■ For Example:

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

■ The assignment (x=a) makes the predicates

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

TOP

PATH SENSITIZING:

TOP

o 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+BCEFGHIJKL

■ 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.
o 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:

o 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.
 o
o 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:
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ 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:
■ A simple and effective form of
instrumentation is called a traversal marker or
link marker.
■ Name every link by a lower case letter.
■ Instrument the links so that the link's name is
recorded when the link is executed.
■ 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.

■ 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.

. 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:
■ 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.
■ The two link markers now specify the path
name and confirm both the beginning and
end of the link.
 . 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.

Unit-2

TRANSACTION FLOW TESTING AND DATA FLOW TESTING:

This unit gives an indepth overview of two forms of functional or system testing namely
Transaction Flow Testing and Data Flow Testing.
At the end of this unit, the student will be able to:

• Understand the concept of transaction flow testing and data flow testing.
• Visualize the transaction flow and data flow in a software system.
• Understand the need and appreciate the usage of the two testing methods.
• Identify the complications in a transaction flow testing method and anomalies in data flow
testing.
• Interpret the data flow anomaly state graphs and control flow grpahs and represent the
state of the data objetcs.
• Understand the limitations of Static analysis in data flow testing.
• Compare and analyze various strategies of data flow testing.

TRANSACTION FLOWS:

• INTRODUCTION:
o A transaction is a unit of work seen from a system user's point of view.
o A transaction consists of a sequence of operations, some of which are
performed by a system, persons or devices that are outside of the system.
o Transaction begin with Birth-that is they are created as a result of some
external act.
o At the conclusion of the transaction's processing, the transaction is no longer in
the system.
o Example of a transaction: A transaction for an online information retrieval
system might consist of the following steps or tasks:
■ Accept input (tentative birth)
■ Validate input (birth)
■ Transmit acknowledgement to requester
■ Do input processing
■ Search file
■ Request directions from user
■ Accept input
■ Validate input
■ Process request
■ Update file
■ Transmit output
 ■ Record transaction in log and clean up (death)
• TRANSACTION FLOW GRAPHS:
o Transaction flows are introduced as a representation of a system's processing.
o The methods that were applied to control flow graphs are then used for
functional testing.
o Transaction flows and transaction flow testing are to the independent system
tester what control flows are path testing are to the programmer.
o The transaction flow graph is to create a behavioral model of the program that
leads to functional testing.
o The transaction flowgraph is a model of the structure of the system's behavior
(functionality).
o An example of a Transaction Flow is as follows:

• USAGE:
o Transaction flows are indispensable for specifying requirements of complicated
systems, especially online systems.
o A big system such as an air traffic control or airline reservation system, has not
hundreds, but thousands of different transaction flows.
o The flows are represented by relatively simple flowgraphs, many of which have
a single straight-through path.
o Loops are infrequent compared to control flowgraphs.
o The most common loop is used to request a retry after user input errors. An
ATM system, for example, allows the user to try, say three times, and will take
the card away the fourth time.
• COMPLICATIONS:
o In simple cases, the transactions have a unique identity from the time they're
created to the time they're completed.
o In many systems the transactions can give birth to others, and transactions can
also merge.
o Births:There are three different possible interpretations of the decision symbol,
or nodes with two or more out links. It can be a Decision, Biosis or a Mitosis.
. Decision:Here the transaction will take one alternative or the other
alternative but not both. (See Figure 3.2 (a))
. Biosis:Here the incoming transaction gives birth to a new
transaction, and both transaction continue on their separate paths,
and the parent retains it identity. (See Figure 3.2 (b))
. Mitosis:Here the parent transaction is destroyed and two new
transactions are created.(See Figure 3.2 (c))

o Mergers:Transaction flow junction points are potentially as troublesome as

transaction flow splits. There are three types of junctions: (1) Ordinary Junction
(2) Absorption (3) Conjugation
. Ordinary Junction: An ordinary junction which is similar to the
junction in a control flow graph. A transaction can arrive either on
one link or the other. (See Figure 3.3 (a))
. Absorption: In absorption case, the predator transaction absorbs
prey transaction. The prey gone but the predator retains its identity.
(See Figure 3.3 (b))
. Conjugation: In conjugation case, the two parent transactions
merge to form a new daughter. In keeping with the biological flavor
this case is called as conjugation.(See Figure 3.3 (c))
 o We have no problem with ordinary decisions and junctions. Births, absorptions,
and conjugations are as problematic for the software designer as they are for
the software modeler and the test designer; as a consequence, such points
have more than their share of bugs. The common problems are: lost daughters,
wrongful deaths, and illegitimate births.

TRANSACTION FLOW TESTING TECHNIQUES:

• GET THE TRANSACTIONS FLOWS:

o Complicated systems that process a lot of different, complicated transactions
should have explicit representations of the transactions flows, or the equivalent.
o Transaction flows are like control flow graphs, and consequently we should
expect to have them in increasing levels of detail.
o The system's design documentation should contain an overview section that
details the main transaction flows.
o Detailed transaction flows are a mandatory pre requisite to the rational design
of a system's functional test.
• INSPECTIONS, REVIEWS AND WALKTHROUGHS:
o Transaction flows are natural agenda for system reviews or inspections.
o In conducting the walkthroughs, you should:
■ Discuss enough transaction types to account for 98%-99% of the
transaction the system is expected to process.
■ Discuss paths through flows in functional rather than technical terms.
■ Ask the designers to relate every flow to the specification and to
show how that transaction, directly or indirectly, follows from the
requirements.
o Make transaction flow testing the corner stone of system functional testing just
as path testing is the corner stone of unit testing.
o Select additional flow paths for loops, extreme values, and domain boundaries.
o Design more test cases to validate all births and deaths.
o Publish and distribute the selected test paths through the transaction flows as
early as possible so that they will exert the maximum beneficial effect on the
project.
o
• PATH SELECTION:
o Select a set of covering paths (c1+c2) using the analogous criteria you used for
structural path testing.
o Select a covering set of paths based on functionally sensible transactions as
you would for control flow graphs.
o Try to find the most tortuous, longest, strangest path from the entry to the exit
of the transaction flow.
• PATH SENSITIZATION:
o Most of the normal paths are very easy to sensitize-80% - 95% transaction
flow coverage (c1+c2) is usually easy to achieve.
o The remaining small percentage is often very difficult.
 o Sensitization is the act of defining the transaction. If there are sensitization
problems on the easy paths, then bet on either a bug in transaction flows or a
design bug.
• PATH INSTRUMENTATION:
o Instrumentation plays a bigger role in transaction flow testing than in unit path
testing.
o The information of the path taken for a given transaction must be kept with that
transaction and can be recorded by a central transaction dispatcher or by the
individual processing modules.
o In some systems, such traces are provided by the operating systems or a
running log.

IMPLEMENTATION:

BASICS OF DATA FLOW TESTING:

• DATA FLOW TESTING:

o Data flow testing is the name given to a family of test strategies based on
selecting paths through the program's control flow in order to explore
sequences of events related to the status of data objects.
o For example, pick enough paths to assure that every data object has been
initialized prior to use or that all defined objects have been used for something.
o Motivation:

• DATA FLOW MACHINES:

o There are two types of data flow machines with different architectures. (1) Von
Neumann machnes (2) Multi-instruction, multi-data machines (MIMD).
o Von Neumann Machine Architecture:
■ Most computers today are von-neumann machines.
■ This architecture features interchangeable storage of instructions
and data in the same memory units.
■ The Von Neumann machine Architecture executes one instruction at
a time in the following, micro instruction sequence:
1. Fetch instruction from memory
2. Interpret instruction
3. Fetch operands
4. Process or Execute
5. Store result
 6. Increment program counter
7. GOTO 1
o Multi-instruction, Multi-data machines (MIMD) Architecture:
■ These machines can fetch several instructions and objects in
parallel.
■ They can also do arithmetic and logical operations simultaneously
on different data objects.
■ The decision of how to sequence them depends on the compiler.
• BUG ASSUMPTION:
o The bug assumption for data-flow testing strategies is that control flow is
generally correct and that something has gone wrong with the software so that
data objects are not available when they should be, or silly things are being
done to data objects.
o Also, if there is a control-flow problem, we expect it to have symptoms that can
be detected by data-flow analysis.
o Although we'll be doing data-flow testing, we won't be using data flowgraphs
as such. Rather, we'll use an ordinary control flowgraph annotated to show
what happens to the data objects of interest at the moment.
• DATA FLOW GRAPHS:
o The data flow graph is a graph consisting of nodes and directed links.
 o We will use an control graph to show what happens to data objects of interest
at that moment.
o Our objective is to expose deviations between the data flows we have and the
data flows we want.
o Data Object State and Usage:
■ Data Objects can be created, killed and used.
■ They can be used in two distinct ways: (1) In a Calculation (2) As a
part of a Control Flow Predicate.
■ The following symbols denote these possibilities:
1. Defined: d - defined, created, initialized etc
2. Killed or undefined: k - killed, undefined, released etc
3. Usage: u - used for something (c - used in Calculations,
p - used in a predicate)
■ 1. Defined (d):
■ An object is defined explicitly when it appears in a data
declaration.
■ Or implicitly when it appears on the left hand side of the
assignment.
■ It is also to be used to mean that a file has been opened.
■ A dynamically allocated object has been allocated.
■ Something is pushed on to the stack.
■ A record written.
■ 2. Killed or Undefined (k):
■ An object is killed on undefined when it is released or
otherwise made unavailable.
■ When its contents are no longer known with certitude
(with aboslute certainity / perfectness).
■ Release of dynamically allocated objects back to the
availability pool.
■ Return of records.
■ The old top of the stack after it is popped.
■ An assignment statement can kill and redefine
immediately. For example, if A had been previously
defined and we do a new assignment such as A : = 17,
we have killed A's previous value and redefined A
■ 3. Usage (u):
■ A variable is used for computation (c) when it appears on
the right hand side of an assignment statement.
■ A file record is read or written.
■ It is used in a Predicate (p) when it appears directly in a
predicate.
• DATA FLOW ANOMALIES:
o An anomaly is denoted by a two-character sequence of actions.
o For example, ku means that the object is killed and then used, where as dd
means that the object is defined twice without an intervening usage.
o What is an anomaly is depend on the application.
o There are nine possible two-letter combinations for d, k and u. some are bugs,
some are suspicious, and some are okay.
. dd :- probably harmless but suspicious. Why define the object twice
without an intervening usage?
. dk :- probably a bug. Why define the object without using it?
. du :- the normal case. The object is defined and then used.
. kd :- normal situation. An object is killed and then redefined.
. kk :- harmless but probably buggy. Did you want to be sure it was
really killed?
 . ku :- a bug. the object doesnot exist.
. ud :- usually not a bug because the language permits reassignment
at almost any time.
. uk :- normal situation.
. uu :- normal situation.
o In addition to the two letter situations, there are six single letter situations.
o We will use a leading dash to mean that nothing of interest (d,k,u) occurs prior
to the action noted along the entry-exit path of interest.
o A trailing dash to mean that nothing happens after the point of interest to the
exit.
o They possible anomalies are:
. -k :- possibly anomalous because from the entrance to this point on
the path, the variable had not been defined. We are killing a variable
that does not exist.
. -d :- okay. This is just the first definition along this path.
. -u :- possibly anomalous. Not anomalous if the variable is global
and has been previously defined.
. k- :- not anomalous. The last thing done on this path was to kill the
variable.
. d- :- possibly anomalous. The variable was defined and not used on
this path. But this could be a global definition.
. u- :- not anomalous. The variable was used but not killed on this
path. Although this sequence is not anomalous, it signals a frequent
kind of bug. If d and k mean dynamic storage allocation and return
respectively, this could be an instance in which a dynamically
allocated object was not returned to the pool after use.
• DATA FLOW ANOMALY STATE GRAPH:
o Data flow anomaly model prescribes that an object can be in one of four
distinct states:
. K :- undefined, previously killed, doesnot exist
. D :- defined but not yet used for anything
. U :- has been used for computation or in predicate
. A :- anomalous
o These capital letters (K,D,U,A) denote the state of the variable and should not
be confused with the program action, denoted by lower case letters.
o Unforgiving Data - Flow Anomaly Flow Graph:Unforgiving model, in which
once a variable becomes anomalous it can never return to a state of grace.
 Assume that the variable starts in the K state - that is, it has not been defined or
does not exist. If an attempt is made to use it or to kill it (e.g., say that we're
talking about opening, closing, and using files and that 'killing' means closing),
the object's state becomes anomalous (state A) and, once it is anomalous, no
action can return the variable to a working state. If it is defined (d), it goes into
the D, or defined but not yet used, state. If it has been defined (D) and
redefined (d) or killed without use (k), it becomes anomalous, while usage (u)
brings it to the U state. If in U, redefinition (d) brings it to D, u keeps it in U, and
k kills it.

o Forgiving Data - Flow Anomaly Flow Graph:Forgiving model is an alternate

model where redemption (recover) from the anomalous state is possible.

This graph has three normal and three anomalous states and he considers the
kk sequence not to be anomalous. The difference between this state graph and
Figure 3.5 is that redemption is possible. A proper action from any of the three
anomalous states returns the variable to a useful working state.

The point of showing you this alternative anomaly state graph is to demonstrate
that the specifics of an anomaly depends on such things as language,
application, context, or even your frame of mind. In principle, you must create a
new definition of data flow anomaly (e.g., a new state graph) in each situation.
You must at least verify that the anomaly definition behind the theory or
imbedded in a data flow anomaly test tool is appropriate to your situation.

• STATIC Vs DYNAMIC ANOMALY DETECTION:

o Static analysis is analysis done on source code without actually executing it.
For example: source code syntax error detection is the static analysis result.
o Dynamic analysis is done on the fly as the program is being executed and is
based on intermediate values that result from the program's execution. For
example: a division by zero warning is the dynamic result.
o If a problem, such as a data flow anomaly, can be detected by static analysis
methods, then it doesnot belongs in testing - it belongs in the language
processor.
o There is actually a lot more static analysis for data flow analysis for data flow
anomalies going on in current language processors.
o For example, language processors which force variable declarations can
detect (-u) and (ku) anomalies.
o But still there are many things for which current notions of static analysis are
INADEQUATE.
o Why Static Analysis isn't enough? There are many things for which current
notions of static analysis are inadequate. They are:
■ Dead Variables:Although it is often possible to prove that a variable
is dead or alive at a given point in the program, the general problem
is unsolvable.
■ Arrays:Arrays are problematic in that the array is defined or killed as
a single object, but reference is to specific locations within the array.
Array pointers are usually dynamically calculated, so there's no way
to do a static analysis to validate the pointer value. In many
languages, dynamically allocated arrays contain garbage unless
explicitly initialized and therefore, -u anomalies are possible.
■ Records and Pointers:The array problem and the difficulty with
pointers is a special case of multipart data structures. We have the
same problem with records and the pointers to them. Also, in many
applications we create files and their names dynamically and there's
no way to determine, without execution, whether such objects are in
the proper state on a given path or, for that matter, whether they
exist at all.
■ Dynamic Subroutine and Function Names in a Call:subroutine or
function name is a dynamic variable in a call. What is passed, or a
combination of subroutine names and data objects, is constructed
on a specific path. There's no way, without executing the path, to
determine whether the call is correct or not.
■ False Anomalies:Anomalies are specific to paths. Even a "clear
bug" such as ku may not be a bug if the path along which the
anomaly exist is unachievable. Such "anomalies" are false
anomalies. Unfortunately, the problem of determining whether a
path is or is not achievable is unsolvable.
■ Recoverable Anomalies and Alternate State Graphs:What
constitutes an anomaly depends on context, application, and
semantics. How does the compiler know which model I have in
mind? It can't because the definition of "anomaly" is not
fundamental. The language processor must have a built-in anomaly
definition with which you may or may not (with good reason) agree.
■ Concurrency, Interrupts, System Issues:As soon as we get away
from the simple single-task uniprocessor environment and start
thinking in terms of systems, most anomaly issues become vastly
more complicated. How often do we define or create data objects
at an interrupt level so that they can be processed by a
lower-priority routine? Interrupts can make the "correct" anomalous
and the "anomalous" correct. True concurrency (as in an MIMD
 machine) and pseudoconcurrency (as in multiprocessing) systems
can do the same to us. Much of integration and system testing is
aimed at detecting data-flow anomalies that cannot be detected in
the context of a single routine.
o Although static analysis methods have limits, they are worth using and a
continuing trend in language processor design has been better static analysis
methods, especially for data flow anomaly detection. That's good because it
means there's less for us to do as testers and we have far too much to do as it
is.
• DATA FLOW MODEL:
o The data flow model is based on the program's control flow graph - Don't
confuse that with the program's data flowgraph..
o Here we annotate each link with symbols (for example, d, k, u, c, p) or
sequences of symbols (for example, dd, du, ddd) that denote the sequence of
data operations on that link with respect to the variable of interest. Such
annotations are called link weights.
o The control flow graph structure is same for every variable: it is the weights that
change.
o Components of the model:
. To every statement there is a node, whose name is unique. Every
node has at least one outlink and at least one inlink except for exit
nodes and entry nodes.
. Exit nodes are dummy nodes placed at the outgoing arrowheads of
exit statements (e.g., END, RETURN), to complete the graph.
Similarly, entry nodes are dummy nodes placed at entry statements
(e.g., BEGIN) for the same reason.
. The outlink of simple statements (statements with only one outlink)
are weighted by the proper sequence of data-flow actions for that
statement. Note that the sequence can consist of more than one
letter. For example, the assignment statement A:= A + B in most
languages is weighted by cd or possibly ckd for variable A.
Languages that permit multiple simultaneous assignments and/or
compound statements can have anomalies within the statement.
The sequence must correspond to the order in which the object
code will be executed for that variable.
. Predicate nodes (e.g., IF-THEN-ELSE, DO WHILE, CASE) are
weighted with the p - use(s) on every outlink, appropriate to that
outlink.
. Every sequence of simple statements (e.g., a sequence of nodes
with one inlink and one outlink) can be replaced by a pair of nodes
that has, as weights on the link between them, the concatenation of
link weights.
. If there are several data-flow actions on a given link for a given
variable, then the weight of the link is denoted by the sequence of
actions on that link for that variable.
. Conversely, a link with several data-flow actions on it can be
replaced by a succession of equivalent links, each of which has at
most one data-flow action for any variable.
o Let us consider the example:
STRATEGIES OF DATA FLOW TESTING:

• INTRODUCTION:
o Data Flow Testing Strategies are structural strategies.
o In contrast to the path-testing strategies, data-flow strategies take into account
what happens to data objects on the links in addition to the raw connectivity of
the graph.
o In other words, data flow strategies require data-flow link weights (d,k,u,c,p).
o Data Flow Testing Strategies are based on selecting test path segments (also
called sub paths) that satisfy some characteristic of data flows for all data
objects.
o For example, all subpaths that contain a d (or u, k, du, dk).
o A strategy X is stronger than another strategy Y if all test cases produced under
Y are included in those produced under X - conversely for weaker.
• TERMINOLOGY:
. Definition-Clear Path Segment, with respect to variable X, is a connected
sequence of links such that X is (possibly) defined on the first link and not
redefined or killed on any subsequent link of that path segment. ll paths in
Figure 3.9 are definition clear because variables X and Y are defined only on
the first link (1,3) and not thereafter. In Figure 3.10, we have a more
complicated situation. The following path segments are definition-clear: (1,3,4),
(1,3,5), (5,6,7,4), (7,8,9,6,7), (7,8,9,10), (7,8,10), (7,8,10,11). Subpath (1,3,4,5) is
not definition-clear because the variable is defined on (1,3) and again on (4,5).
For practice, try finding all the definition-clear subpaths for this routine (i.e., for
all variables).
. Loop-Free Path Segment is a path segment for which every node in it is
visited atmost once. For Example, path (4,5,6,7,8,10) in Figure 3.10 is loop free,
 but path (10,11,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12) is not because nodes 10 and 11 are each
visited twice.
. Simple path segment is a path segment in which at most one node is visited
twice. For example, in Figure 3.10, (7,4,5,6,7) is a simple path segment. A
simple path segment is either loop-free or if there is a loop, only one node is
involved.
. A du path from node i to k is a path segment such that if the last link has a
computational use of X, then the path is simple and definition-clear; if the
penultimate (last but one) node is j - that is, the path is (i,p,q,...,r,s,t,j,k) and link
(j,k) has a predicate use - then the path from i to j is both loop-free and
definition-clear.
• STRATEGIES: The structural test strategies discussed below are based on the program's
control flowgraph. They differ in the extent to which predicate uses and/or computational
uses of variables are included in the test set. Various types of data flow testing strategies
in decreasing order of their effectiveness are:

. All - du Paths (ADUP): The all-du-paths (ADUP) strategy is the strongest

data-flow testing strategy discussed here. It requires that every du path from
every definition of every variable to every use of that definition be exercised
under some test.

In Figure 3.9, because variables X and Y are used only on

link (1,3), any test that starts at the entry satisfies this criterion (for variables X
and Y, but not for all variables as required by the strategy).

The situation for variable Z (Figure 3.10) is more complicated

because the variable is redefined in many places. For the definition on link (1,3)
we must exercise paths that include subpaths (1,3,4) and (1,3,5). The definition
on link (4,5) is covered by any path that includes (5,6), such as subpath
(1,3,4,5,6, ...). The (5,6) definition requires paths that include subpaths (5,6,7,4)
and (5,6,7,8).

Variable V (Figure 3.11) is defined only once on link (1,3).

Because V has a predicate use at node 12 and the subsequent path to the end
must be forced for both directions at node 12, the all-du-paths strategy for this
variable requires that we exercise all loop-free entry/exit paths and at least one
path that includes the loop caused by (11,4). Note that we must test paths that
include both subpaths (3,4,5) and (3,5) even though neither of these has V
definitions. They must be included because they provide alternate du paths to
the V use on link (5,6). Although (7,4) is not used in the test set for variable V, it
will be included in the test set that covers the predicate uses of array variable
V() and U.

The all-du-paths strategy is a strong criterion, but it does not take as many
tests as it might seem at first because any one test simultaneously satisfies the
criterion for several definitions and uses of several different variables.

. All Uses Startegy (AU):The all uses strategy is that at least one definition clear
path from every definition of every variable to every use of that definition be
exercised under some test. Just as we reduced our ambitions by stepping
down from all paths (P) to branch coverage (C2), say, we can reduce the
number of test cases by asking that the test set should include at least one path
segment from every definition to every use that can be reached by that
definition.

In Figure 3.11, ADUP requires that we include subpaths (3,4,5)

 and (3,5) in some test because subsequent uses of V, such as on link (5,6), can
be reached by either alternative. In AU either (3,4,5) or (3,5) can be used to
start paths, but we don't have to use both. Similarly, we can skip the (8,10) link
if we've included the (8,9,10) subpath. Note the hole. We must include (8,9,10)
in some test cases because that's the only way to reach the c use at link (9,10) -
but suppose our bug for variable V is on link (8,10) after all? Find a covering set
of paths under AU for Figure 3.11.

. All p-uses/some c-uses strategy (APU+C) : For every variable and every
definition of that variable, include at least one definition free path from the
definition to every predicate use; if there are definitions of the variables that are
not covered by the above prescription, then add computational use test cases
as required to cover every definition.

In Figure 3.10, for APU+C we can select paths that all take the
upper link (12,13) and therefore we do not cover the c-use of Z: but that's okay
according to the strategy's definition because every definition is covered. Links
(1,3), (4,5), (5,6), and (7,8) must be included because they contain definitions
for variable Z. Links (3,4), (3,5), (8,9), (8,10), (9,6), and (9,10) must be included
because they contain predicate uses of Z. Find a covering set of test cases
under APU+C for all variables in this example - it only takes two tests.

In Figure 3.11, APU+C is achieved for V by

(1,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12[upper], 13,2) and (1,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12[lower],
13,2). Note that the c-use at (9,10) need not be included under the APU+C
criterion.

. All c-uses/some p-uses strategy (ACU+P) : The all c-uses/some p-uses

strategy (ACU+P) is to first ensure coverage by computational use cases and if
any definition is not covered by the previously selected paths, add such
predicate use cases as are needed to assure that every definition is included in
some test.

In Figure 3.10, ACU+P coverage is achieved for Z by path

(1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10, 11,12,13[lower], 2), but the predicate uses of several definitions
are not covered. Specifically, the (1,3) definition is not covered for the (3,5)
p-use, the (7,8) definition is not covered for the (8,9), (9,6) and (9, 10) p-uses.

. All Definitions Strategy (AD) : The all definitions strategy asks only every
definition of every variable be covered by atleast one use of that variable, be
that use a computational use or a predicate use.

Path (1,3,4,5,6,7,8, . . .) satisfies this criterion for variable Z,

whereas any entry/exit path satisfies it for variable V.

. All Predicate Uses (APU), All Computational Uses (ACU) Strategies : The all
predicate uses strategy is derived from APU+C strategy by dropping the
requirement that we include a c-use for the variable if there are no p-uses for
 the variable. The all computational uses strategy is derived from ACU+P
strategy by dropping the requirement that we include a p-use for the variable if
there are no c-uses for the variable.

• ORDERING THE STRATEGIES:

o Figure 3.12 compares path-flow and data-flow testing strategies. The arrows
denote that the strategy at the arrow's tail is stronger than the strategy at the
arrow's head.

o The right-hand side of this graph, along the path from "all paths" to "all
statements" is the more interesting hierarchy for practical applications.
o Note that although ACU+P is stronger than ACU, both are incomparable to the
predicate-biased strategies. Note also that "all definitions" is not comparable to
ACU or APU.
• SLICING AND DICING:
o A (static) program slice is a part of a program (e.g., a selected set of
statements) defined with respect to a given variable X (where X is a simple
 variable or a data vector) and a statement i: it is the set of all statements that
could (potentially, under static analysis) affect the value of X at statement i -
where the influence of a faulty statement could result from an improper
computational use or predicate use of some other variables at prior statements.
o If X is incorrect at statement i, it follows that the bug must be in the program
slice for X with respect to i
o A program dice is a part of a slice in which all statements which are known to
be correct have been removed.
o In other words, a dice is obtained from a slice by incorporating information
obtained through testing or experiment (e.g., debugging).
o The debugger first limits her scope to those prior statements that could have
caused the faulty value at statement i (the slice) and then eliminates from
further consideration those statements that testing has shown to be correct.
o Debugging can be modeled as an iterative procedure in which slices are further
refined by dicing, where the dicing information is obtained from ad hoc tests
aimed primarily at eliminating possibilities. Debugging ends when the dice has
been reduced to the one faulty statement.
o Dynamic slicing is a refinement of static slicing in which only statements on
achievable paths to the statement in question are included.

APPLICATION OF DATA FLOW TESTING:

DOMAIN TESTING:

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

• Understand the concept of domain testing.

• Understand the importance and limitations of domain testing.
• Differentiate ugly and nice domains.
• Know the properties of ugly and nice domains.
• Learn the domain testing strategy for different dimension domains.
• Identify the problems due to the incompatibility of domains and ranges in interface testing.

DOMAINS AND PATHS:

• INTRODUCTION:
o Domain:In mathematics, domain is a set of possible values of an independant
variable or the variables of a function.
o Programs as input data classifiers: domain testing attempts to determine
whether the classification is or is not correct.
o Domain testing can be based on specifications or equivalent implementation
information.
o If domain testing is based on specifications, it is a functional test technique.
o If domain testing is based implementation details, it is a structural test
technique.
 o For example, you're doing domain testing when you check extreme values of
an input variable.

• THE MODEL: The following figure is a schematic representation of domain testing.

o Before doing whatever it does, a routine must classify the input and set it
moving on the right path.
o An invalid input (e.g., value too big) is just a special processing case called
'reject'.
o The input then passses to a hypothetical subroutine rather than on calculations.
o In domain testing, we focus on the classification aspect of the routine rather
than on the calculations.
o Structural knowledge is not needed for this model - only a consistent, complete
specification of input values for each case.
o We can infer that for each case there must be atleast one path to process that
case.
• A DOMAIN IS A SET:
o An input domain is a set.
o If the source language supports set definitions (E.g. PASCAL set types and C
enumerated types) less testing is needed because the compiler does much of it
for us.
o Domain testing does not work well with arbitrary discrete sets of data objects.
o Domain for a loop-free program corresponds to a set of numbers defined over
the input vector.
• DOMAINS, PATHS AND PREDICATES:
 o In domain testing, predicates are assumed to be interpreted in terms of input
vector variables.
o If domain testing is applied to structure, then predicate interpretation must be
based on actual paths through the routine - that is, based on the
implementation control flowgraph.
o Conversely, if domain testing is applied to specifications, interpretation is based
on a specified data flowgraph for the routine; but usually, as is the nature of
specifications, no interpretation is needed because the domains are specified
directly.
o For every domain, there is at least one path through the routine.
o There may be more than one path if the domain consists of disconnected parts
or if the domain is defined by the union of two or more domains.
o Domains are defined their boundaries. Domain boundaries are also where
most domain bugs occur.
o For every boundary there is at least one predicate that specifies what numbers
belong to the domain and what numbers don't.

For example, in the statement IF x>0 THEN ALPHA ELSE BETA we know that
numbers greater than zero belong to ALPHA processing domain(s) while zero
and smaller numbers belong to BETA domain(s).

o A domain may have one or more boundaries - no matter how many variables
define it.

For example, if the predicate is x2 + y2 < 16, the domain is the inside of a circle
of radius 4 about the origin. Similarly, we could define a spherical domain with
one boundary but in three variables.

o Domains are usually defined by many boundary segments and therefore by

many predicates. i.e. the set of interpreted predicates traversed on that path
(i.e., the path's predicate expression) defines the domain's boundaries.
• A DOMAIN CLOSURE:
o A domain boundary is closed with respect to a domain if the points on the
boundary belong to the domain.
o If the boundary points belong to some other domain, the boundary is said to
be open.
o Figure 4.2 shows three situations for a one-dimensional domain - i.e., a
domain defined over one input variable; call it x
o The importance of domain closure is that incorrect closure bugs are frequent
domain bugs. For example, x >= 0 when x > 0 was intended.
• DOMAIN DIMENSIONALITY:
o Every input variable adds one dimension to the domain.
o One variable defines domains on a number line.
o Two variables define planar domains.
o Three variables define solid domains.
o Every new predicate slices through previously defined domains and cuts them
in half.
o Every boundary slices through the input vector space with a dimensionality
which is less than the dimensionality of the space.
o Thus, planes are cut by lines and points, volumes by planes, lines and points
and n-spaces by hyperplanes.
• BUG ASSUMPTION:
o The bug assumption for the domain testing is that processing is okay but the
domain definition is wrong.
o An incorrectly implemented domain means that boundaries are wrong, which
may in turn mean that control flow predicates are wrong.
o Many different bugs can result in domain errors. Some of them are:
Domain Errors:
■ Double Zero Representation :In computers or Languages that have
a distinct positive and negative zero, boundary errors for negative
zero are common.
■ Floating point zero check:A floating point number can equal zero
only if the previous definition of that number set it to zero or if it is
subtracted from it self or multiplied by zero. So the floating point
zero check to be done against a epsilon value.
■ Contradictory domains:An implemented domain can never be
ambiguous or contradictory, but a specified domain can. A
contradictory domain specification means that at least two
supposedly distinct domains overlap.
 ■ Ambiguous domains:Ambiguous domains means that union of the
domains is incomplete. That is there are missing domains or holes in
the specified domains. Not specifying what happens to points on
the domain boundary is a common ambiguity.
■ Overspecified Domains:he domain can be overloaded with so
many conditions that the result is a null domain. Another way to put
it is to say that the domain's path is unachievable.
■ Boundary Errors:Errors caused in and around the boundary of a
domain. Example, boundary closure bug, shifted, tilted, missing,
extra boundary.
■ Closure Reversal:A common bug. The predicate is defined in terms
of >=. The programmer chooses to implement the logical
complement and incorrectly uses <= for the new predicate; i.e., x >=
0 is incorrectly negated as x <= 0, thereby shifting boundary values
to adjacent domains.
■ Faulty Logic:Compound predicates (especially) are subject to faulty
logic transformations and improper simplification. If the predicates
define domain boundaries, all kinds of domain bugs can result from
faulty logic manipulations.
• RESTRICTIONS TO DOMAIN TESTING:Domain testing has restrictions, as do other testing
techniques. Some of them include:
o Co-incidental Correctness:Domain testing isn't good at finding bugs for which
the outcome is correct for the wrong reasons. If we're plagued by coincidental
correctness we may misjudge an incorrect boundary. Note that this implies
weakness for domain testing when dealing with routines that have binary
outcomes (i.e., TRUE/FALSE)
o Representative Outcome:Domain testing is an example of partition testing.
Partition-testing strategies divide the program's input space into domains such
that all inputs within a domain are equivalent (not equal, but equivalent) in the
sense that any input represents all inputs in that domain. If the selected input is
shown to be correct by a test, then processing is presumed correct, and
therefore all inputs within that domain are expected (perhaps unjustifiably) to
be correct. Most test techniques, functional or structural, fall under partition
testing and therefore make this representative outcome assumption. For
example, x2 and 2x are equal for x = 2, but the functions are different. The
functional differences between adjacent domains are usually simple, such as x
+ 7 versus x + 9, rather than x2 versus 2x.
o Simple Domain Boundaries and Compound Predicates:Compound predicates
in which each part of the predicate specifies a different boundary are not a
problem: for example, x >= 0 AND x < 17, just specifies two domain boundaries
by one compound predicate. As an example of a compound predicate that
specifies one boundary, consider: x = 0 AND y >= 7 AND y <= 14. This predicate
specifies one boundary equation (x = 0) but alternates closure, putting it in one
or the other domain depending on whether y < 7 or y > 14. Treat compound
predicates with respect because they’re more complicated than they seem.
o Functional Homogeneity of Bugs:Whatever the bug is, it will not change the
functional form of the boundary predicate. For example, if the predicate is ax
>= b, the bug will be in the value of a or b but it will not change the predicate to
ax >= b, say.
o Linear Vector Space:Most papers on domain testing, assume linear
boundaries - not a bad assumption because in practice most boundary
predicates are linear.
o Loop Free Software:Loops are problematic for domain testing. The trouble
with loops is that each iteration can result in a different predicate expression
(after interpretation), which means a possible domain boundary change.
NICE AND UGLY DOMAINS:

• NICE DOMAINS:
o Where does these domains come from?
Domains are and will be defined by an imperfect iterative process aimed at
achieving (user, buyer, voter) satisfaction.
o Implemented domains can't be incomplete or inconsistent. Every input will be
processed (rejection is a process), possibly forever. Inconsistent domains will
be made consistent.
o Conversely, specified domains can be incomplete and/or inconsistent.
Incomplete in this context means that there are input vectors for which no path
is specified, and inconsistent means that there are at least two contradictory
specifications over the same segment of the input space.
o Some important properties of nice domains are: Linear, Complete, Systematic,
Orthogonal, Consistently closed, Convex and Simply connected.
o To the extent that domains have these properties domain testing is easy as
testing gets.
o The bug frequency is lesser for nice domain than for ugly domains.

• LINEAR AND NON LINEAR BOUNDARIES:

o Nice domain boundaries are defined by linear inequalities or equations.
o The impact on testing stems from the fact that it takes only two points to
determine a straight line and three points to determine a plane and in general
n+1 points to determine a n-dimensional hyper plane.
o In practice more than 99.99% of all boundary predicates are either linear or can
be linearized by simple variable transformations.
• COMPLETE BOUNDARIES:
o Nice domain boundaries are complete in that they span the number space
from plus to minus infinity in all dimensions.
o Figure 4.4 shows some incomplete boundaries. Boundaries A and E have gaps.
o Such boundaries can come about because the path that hypothetically
corresponds to them is unachievable, because inputs are constrained in such a
way that such values can't exist, because of compound predicates that define
a single boundary, or because redundant predicates convert such boundary
values into a null set.
o The advantage of complete boundaries is that one set of tests is needed to
confirm the boundary no matter how many domains it bounds.
o If the boundary is chopped up and has holes in it, then every segment of that
boundary must be tested for every domain it bounds.

• SYSTEMATIC BOUNDARIES:
o Systematic boundary means that boundary inequalities related by a simple
function such as a constant.
o In Figure 4.3 for example, the domain boundaries for u and v differ only by a
constant. We want relations such as
 where is an arbitrary linear function, X is the input vector, and are
constants, and is a decent function over and that yields a constant,
such as + .
o The first example is a set of parallel lines, and the second example is a set of
systematically (e.g., equally) spaced parallel lines (such as the spokes of a
wheel, if equally spaced in angles, systematic).
o If the boundaries are systematic and if you have one tied down and generate
tests for it, the tests for the rest of the boundaries in that set can be
automatically generated.
• ORTHOGONAL BOUNDARIES:
o Two boundary sets U and V (See Figure 4.3) are said to be orthogonal if every
inequality in V is perpendicular to every inequality in U.
o If two boundary sets are orthogonal, then they can be tested independently
o In Figure 4.3 we have six boundaries in U and four in V. We can confirm the
boundary properties in a number of tests proportional to 6 + 4 = 10 (O(n)). If we
tilt the boundaries to get Figure 4.5, we must now test the intersections. We've
gone from a linear number of cases to a quadratic: from O(n) to O(n2 ).
 o Actually, there are two different but related orthogonality conditions. Sets of
boundaries can be orthogonal to one another but not orthogonal to the
coordinate axes (condition 1), or boundaries can be orthogonal to the
coordinate axes (condition 2).
• CLOSURE CONSISTENCY:
o Figure 4.6 shows another desirable domain property: boundary closures are
consistent and systematic.
o The shaded areas on the boundary denote that the boundary belongs to the
domain in which the shading lies - e.g., the boundary lines belong to the
domains on the right.
o Consistent closure means that there is a simple pattern to the closures - for
example, using the same relational operator for all boundaries of a set of
parallel boundaries.
• CONVEX:
o A geometric figure (in any number of dimensions) is convex if you can take two
arbitrary points on any two different boundaries, join them by a line and all
points on that line lie within the figure.
o Nice domains are convex; dirty domains aren't.
o You can smell a suspected concavity when you see phrases such as: ". . .
except if . . .," "However . . .," ". . . but not. . . ." In programming, it's often the
buts in the specification that kill you.
• SIMPLY CONNECTED:
o Nice domains are simply connected; that is, they are in one piece rather than
pieces all over the place interspersed with other domains.
o Simple connectivity is a weaker requirement than convexity; if a domain is
convex it is simply connected, but not vice versa.
o Consider domain boundaries defined by a compound predicate of the
(boolean) form ABC. Say that the input space is divided into two domains, one
defined by ABC and, therefore, the other defined by its negation .
 o For example, suppose we define valid numbers as those lying between 10 and
17 inclusive. The invalid numbers are the disconnected domain consisting of
numbers less than 10 and greater than 17.
o Simple connectivity, especially for default cases, may be impossible.

• UGLY DOMAINS:
o Some domains are born ugly and some are uglified by bad specifications.
o Every simplification of ugly domains by programmers can be either good or
bad.
o Programmers in search of nice solutions will "simplify" essential complexity out
of existence. Testers in search of brilliant insights will be blind to essential
complexity and therefore miss important cases.
o If the ugliness results from bad specifications and the programmer's
simplification is harmless, then the programmer has made ugly good.
o But if the domain's complexity is essential (e.g., the income tax code), such
"simplifications" constitute bugs.
o Nonlinear boundaries are so rare in ordinary programming that there's no
information on how programmers might "correct" such boundaries if they're
essential.
• AMBIGUITIES AND CONTRADICTIONS:
o Domain ambiguities are holes in the input space.
o The holes may lie with in the domains or in cracks between domains.

o Two kinds of contradictions are possible: overlapped domain specifications and

overlapped closure specifications
o Figure 4.7c shows overlapped domains and Figure 4.7d shows dual closure
assignment.
• SIMPLIFYING THE TOPOLOGY:
o The programmer's and tester's reaction to complex domains is the same -
simplify
 o There are three generic cases: concavities, holes and disconnected pieces.
o Programmers introduce bugs and testers misdesign test cases by: smoothing
out concavities (Figure 4.8a), filling in holes (Figure 4.8b), and joining
disconnected pieces (Figure 4.8c).

• RECTIFYING BOUNDARY CLOSURES:

o If domain boundaries are parallel but have closures that go every which way
(left, right, left, . . .) the natural reaction is to make closures go the same way
(see Figure 4.9).
DOMAIN TESTING:

• DOMAIN TESTING STRATEGY: The domain-testing strategy is simple, although possibly

tedious (slow).
1. Domains are defined by their boundaries; therefore, domain testing
concentrates test points on or near boundaries.
2. Classify what can go wrong with boundaries, then define a test strategy for
each case. Pick enough points to test for all recognized kinds of boundary
errors.
3. Because every boundary serves at least two different domains, test points used
to check one domain can also be used to check adjacent domains. Remove
redundant test points.
4. Run the tests and by posttest analysis (the tedious part) determine if any
boundaries are faulty and if so, how.
5. Run enough tests to verify every boundary of every domain.
• DOMAIN BUGS AND HOW TO TEST FOR THEM:
o An interior point (Figure 4.10) is a point in the domain such that all points within
an arbitrarily small distance (called an epsilon neighborhood) are also in the
domain.
o A boundary point is one such that within an epsilon neighborhood there are
points both in the domain and not in the domain.
o An extreme point is a point that does not lie between any two other arbitrary
but distinct points of a (convex) domain.

o An on point is a point on the boundary.

o If the domain boundary is closed, an off point is a point near the boundary but
in the adjacent domain.
o If the boundary is open, an off point is a point near the boundary but in the
domain being tested; see Figure 4.11. You can remember this by the acronym
COOOOI: Closed Off Outside, Open Off Inside.

o Figure 4.12 shows generic domain bugs: closure bug, shifted boundaries, tilted
boundaries, extra boundary, missing boundary.
• TESTING ONE DIMENSIONAL DOMAINS:
o Figure 4.13 shows possible domain bugs for a one-dimensional open domain
boundary.
o The closure can be wrong (i.e., assigned to the wrong domain) or the boundary
(a point in this case) can be shifted one way or the other, we can be missing a
boundary, or we can have an extra boundary.
o In Figure 4.13a we assumed that the boundary was to be open for A. The bug
we're looking for is a closure error, which converts > to >= or < to <= (Figure
4.13b). One test (marked x) on the boundary point detects this bug because
processing for that point will go to domain A rather than B.
o In Figure 4.13c we've suffered a boundary shift to the left. The test point we
used for closure detects this bug because the bug forces the point from the B
domain, where it should be, to A processing. Note that we can't distinguish
between a shift and a closure error, but we do know that we have a bug.
o Figure 4.13d shows a shift the other way. The on point doesn't tell us anything
because the boundary shift doesn't change the fact that the test point will be
processed in B. To detect this shift we need a point close to the boundary but
within A. The boundary is open, therefore by definition, the off point is in A
(Open Off Inside).
o The same open off point also suffices to detect a missing boundary because
what should have been processed in A is now processed in B.
o To detect an extra boundary we have to look at two domain boundaries. In this
context an extra boundary means that A has been split in two. The two off
points that we selected before (one for each boundary) does the job. If point C
had been a closed boundary, the on test point at C would do it.
 o For closed domains look at Figure 4.14. As for the open boundary, a test point
on the boundary detects the closure bug. The rest of the cases are similar to
the open boundary, except now the strategy requires off points just outside the
domain.

• TESTING TWO DIMENSIONAL DOMAINS:

o Figure 4.15 shows possible domain boundary bugs for a two-dimensional
domain.
o A and B are adjacent domains and the boundary is closed with respect to A,
which means that it is open with respect to B.
o For Closed Boundaries:
1. Closure Bug: Figure 4.15a shows a faulty closure, such as might be
caused by using a wrong operator (for example, x >= k when x > k
was intended, or vice versa). The two on points detect this bug
because those values will get B rather than A processing.
2. Shifted Boundary: In Figure 4.15b the bug is a shift up, which
converts part of domain B into A processing, denoted by A'. This
 result is caused by an incorrect constant in a predicate, such as x +
y >= 17 when x + y >= 7 was intended. The off point (closed off
outside) catches this bug. Figure 4.15c shows a shift down that is
caught by the two on points.
3. Tilted Boundary: A tilted boundary occurs when coefficients in the
boundary inequality are wrong. For example, 3x + 7y > 17 when 7x +
3y > 17 was intended. Figure 4.15d has a tilted boundary, which
creates erroneous domain segments A' and B'. In this example the
bug is caught by the left on point.
4. Extra Boundary: An extra boundary is created by an extra predicate.
An extra boundary will slice through many different domains and will
therefore cause many test failures for the same bug. The extra
boundary in Figure 4.15e is caught by two on points, and depending
on which way the extra boundary goes, possibly by the off point also.
5. Missing Boundary: A missing boundary is created by leaving a
boundary predicate out. A missing boundary will merge different
domains and will cause many test failures although there is only one
bug. A missing boundary, shown in Figure 4.15f, is caught by the
two on points because the processing for A and B is the same -
either A or B processing.
• PROCEDURE FOR TESTING: The procedure is conceptually is straight forward. It can be
done by hand for two dimensions and for a few domains and practically impossible for
more than two variables.
. Identify input variables.
. Identify variable which appear in domain defining predicates, such as control
flow predicates.
. Interpret all domain predicates in terms of input variables.
. For p binary predicates, there are at most 2p combinations of TRUE-FALSE
values and therefore, at most 2p domains. Find the set of all non null domains.
The result is a boolean expression in the predicates consisting a set of AND
terms joined by OR's. For example ABC+DEF+GHI ...... Where the capital letters
denote predicates. Each product term is a set of linear inequality that defines a
domain or a part of a multiply connected domains.
. Solve these inequalities to find all the extreme points of each domain using any
of the linear programming methods.

DOMAIN AND INTERFACE TESTING

• INTRODUCTION:
o Recall that we defined integration testing as testing the correctness of the
interface between two otherwise correct components.
o Components A and B have been demonstrated to satisfy their component tests,
and as part of the act of integrating them we want to investigate possible
inconsistencies across their interface.
o Interface between any two components is considered as a subroutine call.
o We're looking for bugs in that "call" when we do interface testing.
o Let's assume that the call sequence is correct and that there are no type
incompatibilities.
o For a single variable, the domain span is the set of numbers between (and
including) the smallest value and the largest value. For every input variable we
 want (at least): compatible domain spans and compatible closures (Compatible
but need not be Equal).
• DOMAINS AND RANGE:
o The set of output values produced by a function is called the range of the
function, in contrast with the domain, which is the set of input values over
which the function is defined.
o For most testing, our aim has been to specify input values and to predict and/or
confirm output values that result from those inputs.
o Interface testing requires that we select the output values of the calling routine
caller's range must be compatible with the called routine's domain.
o An interface test consists of exploring the correctness of the following
mappings:
o caller domain --> caller range (caller unit
o caller range --> called domain (integration
o called domain --> called range (called unit

• CLOSURE COMPATIBILITY:
o Assume that the caller's range and the called domain spans the same numbers -
for example, 0 to 17.
o Figure 4.16 shows the four ways in which the caller's range closure and the
called's domain closure can agree.
o The thick line means closed and the thin line means open. Figure 4.16 shows
the four cases consisting of domains that are closed both on top (17) and
bottom (0), open top and closed bottom, closed top and open bottom, and
open top and bottom.

o Figure 4.17 shows the twelve different ways the caller and the called can
disagree about closure. Not all of them are necessarily bugs. The four cases in
which a caller boundary is open and the called is closed (marked with a "?") are
probably not buggy. It means that the caller will not supply such values but the
called can accept them.
• SPAN COMPATIBILITY:
o Figure 4.18 shows three possibly harmless span incompatibilities.

o In all cases, the caller's range is a subset of the called's domain. That's not
necessarily a bug.
o The routine is used by many callers; some require values inside a range and
some don't. This kind of span incompatibility is a bug only if the caller expects
the called routine to validate the called number for the caller.
o Figure 4.19a shows the opposite situation, in which the called routine's domain
has a smaller span than the caller expects. All of these examples are buggy.
 o In Figure 4.19b the ranges and domains don't line up; hence good values are
rejected, bad values are accepted, and if the called routine isn't robust enough,
we have crashes.
o Figure 4.19c combines these notions to show various ways we can have holes
in the domain: these are all probably buggy.
• INTERFACE RANGE / DOMAIN COMPATIBILITY TESTING:
o For interface testing, bugs are more likely to concern single variables rather
than peculiar combinations of two or more variables.
o Test every input variable independently of other input variables to confirm
compatibility of the caller's range and the called routine's domain span and
closure of every domain defined for that variable.
o There are two boundaries to test and it's a one-dimensional domain; therefore,
it requires one on and one off point per boundary or a total of two on points and
two off points for the domain - pick the off points appropriate to the closure
(COOOOI).
o Start with the called routine's domains and generate test points in accordance
to the domain-testing strategy used for that routine in component testing.
o Unless you're a mathematical whiz you won't be able to do this without tools for
more than one variable at a time.

DOMAINS AND TESTABILITY

Unit-3

PATHS, PATH PRODUCTS AND REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

This unit gives an indepth overview of Paths of various flow graphs, their interpretations and
application.
At the end of this unit, the student will be able to:

• Interpret the control flowgraph and identify the path products, path sums and path
expressions.
• Identify how the mathematical laws (distributive, associative, commutative etc) holds for
the paths.
• Apply reduction procedure algorithm to a control flowgraph and simplify it into a single
path expression.
• Find the all possible paths (Max. Path Count) of a given flow graph.
• Find the minimum paths required to cover a given flow graph.
• Calculate the probability of paths and understand the need for finding the probabilities.
• Differentiate betweeen Structured and Un-structured flowgraphs.
• Calculate the mean processing time of a routine of a given flowgraph.
• Understand how complimentary operations such as PUSH / POP or GET / RETURN are
interpreted in a flowgraph.
• Identify the limitations of the above approaches.
• Understand the problems due to flow-anomalies and identify whether anomalies exist in
the given path expression.

PATH PRODUCTS AND PATH EXPRESSION:

• MOTIVATION:
o Flow graphs are being an abstract representation of programs.
o Any question about a program can be cast into an equivalent question about an
appropriate flowgraph.
o Most software development, testing and debugging tools use flow graphs
analysis techniques.
• PATH PRODUCTS:
o Normally flow graphs used to denote only control flow connectivity.
o The simplest weight we can give to a link is a name.
o Using link names as weights, we then convert the graphical flow graph into an
equivalent algebraic like expressions which denotes the set of all possible paths
from entry to exit for the flow graph.
o Every link of a graph can be given a name.
o The link name will be denoted by lower case italic letters.
o In tracing a path or path segment through a flow graph, you traverse a
succession of link names.
o The name of the path or path segment that corresponds to those links is
expressed naturally by concatenating those link names.
o For example, if you traverse links a,b,c and d along some path, the name for
that path segment is abcd. This path name is also called a path product. Figure
5.1 shows some examples:
• PATH EXPRESSION:
o Consider a pair of nodes in a graph and the set of paths between those node.
o Denote that set of paths by Upper case letter such as X,Y. From Figure 5.1c, the
members of the path set can be listed as follows:

ac, abc, abbc, abbbc, abbbbc.............

o Alternatively, the same set of paths can be denoted by :

ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+abbbbc+...........

o The + sign is understood to mean "or" between the two nodes of interest, paths
ac, or abc, or abbc, and so on can be taken.
o Any expression that consists of path names and "OR"s and which denotes a set
of paths between two nodes is called a "Path Expression.".
• PATH PRODUCTS:
o The name of a path that consists of two successive path segments is
conveniently expressed by the concatenation or Path Product of the segment
names.
o For example, if X and Y are defined as X=abcde,Y=fghij,then the path
corresponding to X followed by Y is denoted by

XY=abcdefghij

o Similarly,
o YX=fghijabcde
o aX=aabcde
o Xa=abcdea
XaX=abcdeaabcde

o If X and Y represent sets of paths or path expressions, their product represents

the set of paths that can be obtained by following every element of X by any
element of Y in all possible ways. For example,
o X = abc + def + ghi
o Y = uvw + z

Then,

XY = abcuvw + defuvw + ghiuvw + abcz + defz + ghiz

o If a link or segment name is repeated, that fact is denoted by an exponent. The

exponent's value denotes the number of repetitions:
o a1 = a; a2 = aa; a3 = aaa; an = aaaa . . . n
times.

Similarly, if

X = abcde

then

X1 = abcde
X2 = abcdeabcde = (abcde)2
X3 = abcdeabcdeabcde = (abcde)2abcde
= abcde(abcde)2 = (abcde)3

o The path product is not commutative (that is XY!=YX).

o The path product is Associative.

RULE 1: A(BC)=(AB)C=ABC

where A,B,C are path names, set of path names or path expressions.

o The zeroth power of a link name, path product, or path expression is also
needed for completeness. It is denoted by the numeral "1" and denotes the
"path" whose length is zero - that is, the path that doesn't have any links.
o a0 = 1
 o X0 = 1
• PATH SUMS:
o The "+" sign was used to denote the fact that path names were part of the
same set of paths.
o The "PATH SUM" denotes paths in parallel between nodes.
o Links a and b in Figure 5.1a are parallel paths and are denoted by a + b.
Similarly, links c and d are parallel paths between the next two nodes and are
denoted by c + d.
o The set of all paths between nodes 1 and 2 can be thought of as a set of parallel
paths and denoted by eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf.
o If X and Y are sets of paths that lie between the same pair of nodes, then X+Y
denotes the UNION of those set of paths. For example, in Figure 5.2:

The first set of parallel paths is denoted by X + Y + d and the second set by U +
V + W + h + i + j. The set of all paths in this flowgraph is f(X + Y + d)g(U + V + W
+ h + i + j)k

o The path is a set union operation, it is clearly Commutative and Associative.

o RULE 2: X+Y=Y+X
o RULE 3: (X+Y)+Z=X+(Y+Z)=X+Y+Z

• DISTRIBUTIVE LAWS:
o The product and sum operations are distributive, and the ordinary rules of
multiplication apply; that is

RULE 4: A(B+C)=AB+AC and (B+C)D=BD+CD

o Applying these rules to the below Figure 5.1a yields

o e(a+b)(c+d)f=e(ac+ad+bc+bd)f =
eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf
• ABSORPTION RULE:
o If X and Y denote the same set of paths, then the union of these sets is
unchanged; consequently,

RULE 5: X+X=X (Absorption Rule)

 o If a set consists of paths names and a member of that set is added to it, the
"new" name, which is already in that set of names, contributes nothing and can
be ignored.
o For example,
o if X=a+aa+abc+abcd+def then
X+a = X+aa = X+abc = X+abcd = X+def = X

It follows that any arbitrary sum of identical path expressions reduces to the
same path expression.

• LOOPS:
o Loops can be understood as an infinite set of parallel paths. Say that the loop
consists of a single link b. then the set of all paths through that loop point is
b0+b1+b2+b3+b4+b5+..............

o This potentially infinite sum is denoted by b* for an individual link and by X*

when X is a path expression.

o The path expression for the above figure is denoted by the notation:

ab*c=ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+................

o Evidently,

aa*=a*a=a+ and XX*=X*X=X+

 o It is more convenient to denote the fact that a loop cannot be taken more than
a certain, say n, number of times.
o A bar is used under the exponent to denote the fact as follows:

Xn = X0+X1+X2 +X3 +X4 +X5 +..................+Xn

• RULES 6 - 16:
o The following rules can be derived from the previous rules:
o RULE 6: Xn + Xm = Xn if n>m
RULE 6: Xn + Xm = Xm if m>n
RULE 7: XnXm = Xn+m
RULE 8: XnX* = X*Xn = X*
RULE 9: XnX+ = X+Xn = X+
RULE 10: X*X+ = X+ X* = X+
RULE 11: 1 + 1 = 1
RULE 12: 1X = X1 = X
Following or preceding a set of paths by a path of zero length does not change
the set.
RULE 13: 1n = 1n = 1* = 1+ = 1
No matter how often you traverse a path of zero length,It is a path of zero
length.
RULE 14: 1++1 = 1*=1
The null set of paths is denoted by the numeral 0. it obeys the following rules:
RULE 15: X+0=0+X=X
RULE 16: 0X=X0=0
If you block the paths of a graph for or aft by a graph that has no paths , there
wont be any paths.

REDUCTION PROCEDURE:

• REDUCTION PROCEDURE ALGORITHM:

o This section presents a reduction procedure for converting a flowgraph whose
links are labeled with names into a path expression that denotes the set of all
entry/exit paths in that flowgraph. The procedure is a node-by-node removal
algorithm.
o The steps in Reduction Algorithm are as follows:
1. Combine all serial links by multiplying their path expressions.
2. Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
3. Remove all self-loops (from any node to itself) by replacing them
with a link of the form X*, where X is the path expression of the link
in that loop.

STEPS 4 - 8 ARE IN THE ALGORIHTM'S LOOP:

4. Select any node for removal other than the initial or final node.
Replace it with a set of equivalent links whose path expressions
 correspond to all the ways you can form a product of the set of
inlinks with the set of outlinks of that node.
5. Combine any remaining serial links by multiplying their path
expressions.
6. Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
7. Remove all self-loops as in step 3.
8. Does the graph consist of a single link between the entry node and
the exit node? If yes, then the path expression for that link is a path
expression for the original flowgraph; otherwise, return to step 4.
o A flowgraph can have many equivalent path expressions between a given pair
of nodes; that is, there are many different ways to generate the set of all paths
between two nodes without affecting the content of that set.
o The appearance of the path expression depends, in general, on the order in
which nodes are removed.
• CROSS-TERM STEP (STEP 4):
o The cross - term step is the fundamental step of the reduction algorithm.
o It removes a node, thereby reducing the number of nodes by one.
o Successive applications of this step eventually get you down to one entry and
one exit node. The following diagram shows the situation at an arbitrary node
that has been selected for removal:

o From the above diagram, one can infer:

o (a + b)(c + d + e) = ac + ad + + ae +
bc + bd + be

• LOOP REMOVAL OPERATIONS:

o There are two ways of looking at the loop-removal operation:
 o In the first way, we remove the self-loop and then multiply all outgoing links by
Z*.
o In the second way, we split the node into two equivalent nodes, call them A and
A' and put in a link between them whose path expression is Z*. Then we
remove node A' using steps 4 and 5 to yield outgoing links whose path
expressions are Z*X and Z*Y.
• A REDUCTION PROCEDURE - EXAMPLE:
o Let us see by applying this algorithm to the following graph where we remove
several nodes in order; that is

o Remove node 10 by applying step 4 and combine by step 5 to yield

o Remove node 9 by applying step4 and 5 to yield

o Remove node 7 by steps 4 and 5, as follows:

o Remove node 8 by steps 4 and 5, to obtain:

o PARALLEL TERM (STEP 6):

Removal of node 8 above led to a pair of parallel links between nodes 4 and 5.
combine them to create a path expression for an equivalent link whose path
expression is c+gkh; that is

o LOOP TERM (STEP 7):

Removing node 4 leads to a loop term. The graph has now been replaced with
the following equivalent simpler graph:
o Continue the process by applying the loop-removal step as follows:

o Removing node 5 produces:

o Remove the loop at node 6 to yield:

o Remove node 3 to yield:

o Removing the loop and then node 6 result in the following expression:
o
a(bgjf)*b(c+gkh)d((ilhd)*imf(bjgf)*b(c+gkh)d)*(ilh
d)*e

o You can practice by applying the algorithm on the following flowgraphs and
generate their respective path expressions:

TOP
APPLICATIONS:

• APPLICATIONS:
o The purpose of the node removal algorithm is to present one very generalized
concept- the path expression and way of getting it.
o Every application follows this common pattern:
1. Convert the program or graph into a path expression.
2. Identify a property of interest and derive an appropriate set of
"arithmetic" rules that characterizes the property.
3. Replace the link names by the link weights for the property of
interest. The path expression has now been converted to an
expression in some algebra, such as ordinary algebra, regular
expressions, or boolean algebra. This algebraic expression
summarizes the property of interest over the set of all paths.
4. Simplify or evaluate the resulting "algebraic" expression to answer
the question you asked.
• HOW MANY PATHS IN A FLOWGRAPH ?
o The question is not simple. Here are some ways you could ask it:
1. What is the maximum number of different paths possible?
2. What is the fewest number of paths possible?
3. How many different paths are there really?
4. What is the average number of paths?
o Determining the actual number of different paths is an inherently difficult
problem because there could be unachievable paths resulting from correlated
and dependent predicates.
o If we know both of these numbers (maximum and minimum number of
possible paths) we have a good idea of how complete our testing is.
o Asking for "the average number of paths" is meaningless.
• MAXIMUM PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:
o Label each link with a link weight that corresponds to the number of paths that
link represents.
o Also mark each loop with the maximum number of times that loop can be
taken. If the answer is infinite, you might as well stop the analysis because it is
clear that the maximum number of paths will be infinite.
o There are three cases of interest: parallel links, serial links, and loops.
o This arithmetic is an ordinary algebra. The weight is the number of paths in
each set.
o EXAMPLE:
■ The following is a reasonably well-structured program.

Each link represents a single link and consequently is given a weight

of "1" to start. Lets say the outer loop will be taken exactly four times
and inner Loop Can be taken zero or three times Its path expression,
with a little work, is:

Path expression:
a(b+c)d{e(fi)*fgj(m+l)k}*e(fi)*fgh

■ A: The flow graph should be annotated by replacing the link name

with the maximum of paths through that link (1) and also note the
number of times for looping.
■ B: Combine the first pair of parallel loops outside the loop and also
the pair in the outer loop.
■ C: Multiply the things out and remove nodes to clear the clutter.
 ■ For the Inner Loop:
D:Calculate the total weight of inner loop, which can execute a min.
of 0 times and max. of 3 times. So, it inner loop can be evaluated as
follows:

13 = 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4

■ E: Multiply the link weights inside the loop: 1 X 4 = 4

■ F: Evaluate the loop by multiplying the link wieghts: 2 X 4 = 8.
■ G: Simpifying the loop further results in the total maximum number
of paths in the flowgraph:

2 X 84 X 2 = 32,768.

o Alternatively, you could have substituted a "1" for each link in the path
expression and then simplified, as follows:

a(b+c)d{e(fi)*fgj(m+l)k}*e(fi)*fgh
= 1(1 + 1)1(1(1 x 1)3 1 x 1 x 1(1 + 1)1) 41(1 x 1)31 x 1 x 1
= 2(131 x (2))413
= 2(4 x 2)4 x 4
= 2 x 84 x 4 = 32,768

o This is the same result we got graphically.

o Actually, the outer loop should be taken exactly four times. That doesn't mean it
will be taken zero or four times. Consequently, there is a superfluous "4" on the
 outlink in the last step. Therefore the maximum number of different paths is
8192 rather than 32,768.
• STRUCTURED FLOWGRAPH:
o Structured code can be defined in several different ways that do not involve ad-
hoc rules such as not using GOTOs.
o A structured flowgraph is one that can be reduced to a single link by successive
application of the transformations of Figure 5.7.

o The node-by-node reduction procedure can also be used as a test for

structured code.
o Flow graphs that DO NOT contain one or more of the graphs shown below
(Figure 5.8) as subgraphs are structured.
. Jumping into loops
. Jumping out of loops
. Branching into decisions
. Branching out of decisions
• LOWER PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:
o A lower bound on the number of paths in a routine can be approximated for
structured flow graphs.
o The arithmetic is as follows:
o The values of the weights are the number of members in a set of paths.
o EXAMPLE:
■ Applying the arithmetic to the earlier example gives us the identical
steps unitl step 3 (C) as below:

■ From Step 4, the it would be different from the previous example:

 ■ If you observe the original graph, it takes at least two paths to cover
and that it can be done in two paths.
■ If you have fewer paths in your test plan than this minimum you
probably haven't covered. It's another check.
• CALCULATING THE PROBABILITY:
o Path selection should be biased toward the low - rather than the
high-probability paths.
o This raises an interesting question:

This question can be answered under suitable assumptions, primarily that all
probabilities involved are independent, which is to say that all decisions are
independent and uncorrelated.
o We use the same algorithm as before : node-by-node removal of uninteresting
nodes.
o Weights, Notations and Arithmetic:
■ Probabilities can come into the act only at decisions (including
decisions associated with loops).
■ Annotate each outlink with a weight equal to the probability of going
in that direction.
■ Evidently, the sum of the outlink probabilities must equal 1
■ For a simple loop, if the loop will be taken a mean of N times, the
looping probability is N/(N + 1) and the probability of not looping is
1/(N + 1).
■ A link that is not part of a decision node has a probability of 1.
■ The arithmetic rules are those of ordinary arithmetic.

■ In this table, in case of a loop, PA is the probability of the link leaving

the loop and PL is the probability of looping.
■ The rules are those of ordinary probability theory.
1. If you can do something either from column A with a
probability of PA or from column B with a probability PB,
then the probability that you do either is PA + PB.
2. For the series case, if you must do both things, and their
probabilities are independent (as assumed), then the
probability that you do both is the product of their
probabilities.
■ For example, a loop node has a looping probability of PL and a
probability of not looping of PA, which is obviously equal to I - PL.

■ Following the above rule, all we've done is replace the outgoing
probability with 1 - so why the complicated rule? After a few steps in
 which you've removed nodes, combined parallel terms, removed
loops and the like, you might find something like this:

because PL + PA + PB + PC = 1, 1 - PL = PA + PB + PC, and

which is what we've postulated for any decision. In other words,

division by 1 - PL renormalizes the outlink probabilities so that their
sum equals unity after the loop is removed.

o EXAMPLE:
■ Here is a complicated bit of logic. We want to know the probability
associated with cases A, B, and C.

■ Let us do this in three parts, starting with case A. Note that the sum
of the probabilities at each decision node is equal to 1. Start by
throwing away anything that isn't on the way to case A, and then
apply the reduction procedure. To avoid clutter, we usually leave out
probabilities equal to 1.

CASE A:
■ Case B is simpler:
■ Case C is similar and should yield a probability of 1 - 0.125 - 0.158 =
0.717:

■ This checks. It's a good idea when doing this sort of thing to
calculate all the probabilities and to verify that the sum of the
routine's exit probabilities does equal 1.
 ■ If it doesn't, then you've made calculation error or, more likely,
you've left out some branching probability.
■ How about path probabilities? That's easy. Just trace the path of
interest and multiply the probabilities as you go.
■ Alternatively, write down the path name and do the indicated
arithmetic operation.
■ Say that a path consisted of links a, b, c, d, e, and the associated
probabilities were .2, .5, 1., .01, and I respectively.
Path would have a probability of 5 x 10-10.
■ Long paths are usually improbable.
• MEAN PROCESSING TIME OF A ROUTINE:
o Given the execution time of all statements or instructions for every link in a
flowgraph and the probability for each direction for all decisions are to find the
mean processing time for the routine as a whole.
o The model has two weights associated with every link: the processing time for
that link, denoted by T, and the probability of that link P.
o The arithmetic rules for calculating the mean time:

o EXAMPLE:
. Start with the original flow graph annotated with probabilities and
processing time.

. Combine the parallel links of the outer loop. The result is just the
mean of the processing times for the links because there aren't any
other links leaving the first node. Also combine the pair of links at the
beginning of the flowgraph..
. Combine as many serial links as you can.

. Use the cross-term step to eliminate a node and to create the inner
self - loop.

. Finally, you can get the mean processing time, by using the
arithmetic rules as follows:
• PUSH/POP, GET/RETURN:
o This model can be used to answer several different questions that can turn up
in debugging.
o It can also help decide which test cases to design.
o The question is:

Given a pair of complementary operations such as PUSH (the stack) and

POP (the stack), considering the set of all possible paths through the routine,
what is the net effect of the routine? PUSH or POP? How many times? Under
what conditions?

o Here are some other examples of complementary operations to which this

model applies:
o GET/RETURN a resource block.
o OPEN/CLOSE a file.
START/STOP a device or process.

o EXAMPLE 1 (PUSH / POP):

■ Here is the Push/Pop Arithmetic:

■ The numeral 1 is used to indicate that nothing of interest (neither
PUSH nor POP) occurs on a given link.
■ "H" denotes PUSH and "P" denotes POP. The operations are
commutative, associative, and distributive.

■ Consider the following flowgraph:

P(P + 1)1{P(HH)n1HP1(P + H)1}n2 P(HH)n1HPH

■ Simplifying by using the arithmetic tables,

■ =(P2 + P){P(HH)n1(P + H)}n1(HH)n1
■ =(P2 + P){H2n1 (P2 + 1)}n2 H2n1
■ Below Table 5.9 shows several combinations of values for the two
looping terms - M1 is the number of times the inner loop will be
taken and M2 the number of times the outer loop will be taken.
 ■ These expressions state that the stack will be popped only if the
inner loop is not taken.
■ The stack will be left alone only if the inner loop is iterated once, but
it may also be pushed.
■ For all other values of the inner loop, the stack will only be pushed.
o EXAMPLE 2 (GET / RETURN):

■ Exactly the same arithmetic tables used for previous example are
used for GET / RETURN a buffer block or resource, or, in fact, for
any pair of complementary operations in which the total number of
operations in either direction is cumulative.
■ The arithmetic tables for GET/RETURN are:

"G" denotes GET and "R" denotes RETURN.

■ Consider the following flowgraph:

■ G(G + R)G(GR)*GGR*R
= G(G + R)G3R*R
= (G + R)G3 R*
= (G4 + G2)R*
■ This expression specifies the conditions under which the resources
will be balanced on leaving the routine.
■ If the upper branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop
must be taken four times.
■ If the lower branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop
must be taken twice.
■ For any other values, the routine will not balance. Therefore, the first
loop does not have to be instrumented to verify this behavior
because its impact should be nil.
• LIMITATIONS AND SOLUTIONS:
 o The main limitation to these applications is the problem of unachievable paths.
o The node-by-node reduction procedure, and most graph-theory-based
algorithms work well when all paths are possible, but may provide misleading
results when some paths are unachievable.
o The approach to handling unachievable paths (for any application) is to
partition the graph into subgraphs so that all paths in each of the subgraphs are
achievable.
o The resulting subgraphs may overlap, because one path may be common to
several different subgraphs.
o Each predicate's truth-functional value potentially splits the graph into two
subgraphs. For n predicates, there could be as many as 2n subgraphs.

REGULAR EXPRESSIONS AND FLOW ANOMALY DETECTION:

• THE PROBLEM:
o The generic flow-anomaly detection problem (note: not just data-flow
anomalies, but any flow anomaly) is that of looking for a specific sequence of
options considering all possible paths through a routine.
o Let the operations be SET and RESET, denoted by s and r respectively, and we
want to know if there is a SET followed immediately a SET or a RESET followed
immediately by a RESET (an or an sequence).
o Some more application examples:
1. A file can be opened (o), closed (c), read (r), or written (w). If the file
is read or written to after it's been closed, the sequence is
nonsensical. Therefore, and are anomalous. Similarly, if the
file is read before it's been written, just after opening, we may have
a bug. Therefore, is also anomalous. Furthermore, and ,
though not actual bugs, are a waste of time and therefore should
also be examined.
2. A tape transport can do a rewind (d), fast-forward (f), read (r), write
(w), stop (p), and skip (k). There are rules concerning the use of the
transport; for example, you cannot go from rewind to fast-forward
without an intervening stop or from rewind or fast-forward to read
or write without an intervening stop. The following sequences are
anomalous: , , , , and . Does the flowgraph lead to
anomalous sequences on any path? If so, what sequences and
under what circumstances?
3. The data-flow anomalies discussed in Unit 4 requires us to detect
the , , , and sequences. Are there paths with anomalous
data flows?
• THE METHOD:
o Annotate each link in the graph with the appropriate operator or the null
operator 1.
o Simplify things to the extent possible, using the fact that a + a = a and 12 = 1.
o You now have a regular expression that denotes all the possible sequences of
operators in that graph. You can now examine that regular expression for the
sequences of interest.
o EXAMPLE: Let A, B, C, be nonempty sets of character sequences whose
smallest string is at least one character long. Let T be a two-character string of
 characters. Then if T is a substring of (i.e., if T appears within) ABnC, then T will
appear in AB2C. (HUANG's Theorem)
o As an example, let

A =
B =
C =
T =

The theorem states that will appear in if it appears in .

o However, let

A = + +
B = + ( + )
C =
T =

Is it obvious that there is a 4 sequence in ABnC? The theorem states that we

have only to look at

( + + )[ + ( + )]2

Multiplying out the expression and simplifying shows that there is

no 4 sequence.
o Incidentally, the above observation is an informal proof of the wisdom of
looping twice discussed in Unit 2. Because data-flow anomalies are
represented by two-character sequences, it follows the above theorem that
looping twice is what you need to do to find such anomalies.
• LIMITATIONS:
o Huang's theorem can be easily generalized to cover sequences of greater
length than two characters. Beyond three characters, though, things get
complex and this method has probably reached its utilitarian limit for manual
application.
o There are some nice theorems for finding sequences that occur at the
beginnings and ends of strings but no nice algorithms for finding strings buried
in an expression.
o Static flow analysis methods can't determine whether a path is or is not
achievable. Unless the flow analysis includes symbolic execution or similar
techniques, the impact of unachievable paths will not be included in the
analysis.
o The flow-anomaly application, for example, doesn't tell us that there will be a
flow anomaly - it tells us that if the path is achievable, then there will be a flow
anomaly. Such analytical problems go away, of course, if you take the trouble
to design routines for which all paths are achievable.

Unit-4
PATHS, PATH PRODUCTS AND REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

This unit gives an indepth overview of Paths of various flow graphs, their interpretations and
application.
At the end of this unit, the student will be able to:
• Interpret the control flowgraph and identify the path products, path sums and path
expressions.
• Identify how the mathematical laws (distributive, associative, commutative etc) holds for
the paths.
• Apply reduction procedure algorithm to a control flowgraph and simplify it into a single
path expression.
• Find the all possible paths (Max. Path Count) of a given flow graph.
• Find the minimum paths required to cover a given flow graph.
• Calculate the probability of paths and understand the need for finding the probabilities.
• Differentiate betweeen Structured and Un-structured flowgraphs.
• Calculate the mean processing time of a routine of a given flowgraph.
• Understand how complimentary operations such as PUSH / POP or GET / RETURN are
interpreted in a flowgraph.
• Identify the limitations of the above approaches.
• Understand the problems due to flow-anomalies and identify whether anomalies exist in
the given path expression.

PATH PRODUCTS AND PATH EXPRESSION:

• MOTIVATION:
o Flow graphs are being an abstract representation of programs.
o Any question about a program can be cast into an equivalent question about an
appropriate flowgraph.
o Most software development, testing and debugging tools use flow graphs
analysis techniques.
• PATH PRODUCTS:
o Normally flow graphs used to denote only control flow connectivity.
o The simplest weight we can give to a link is a name.
o Using link names as weights, we then convert the graphical flow graph into an
equivalent algebraic like expressions which denotes the set of all possible paths
from entry to exit for the flow graph.
o Every link of a graph can be given a name.
o The link name will be denoted by lower case italic letters.
o In tracing a path or path segment through a flow graph, you traverse a
succession of link names.
o The name of the path or path segment that corresponds to those links is
expressed naturally by concatenating those link names.
o For example, if you traverse links a,b,c and d along some path, the name for
that path segment is abcd. This path name is also called a path product. Figure
5.1 shows some examples:
• PATH EXPRESSION:
o Consider a pair of nodes in a graph and the set of paths between those node.
o Denote that set of paths by Upper case letter such as X,Y. From Figure 5.1c, the
members of the path set can be listed as follows:

ac, abc, abbc, abbbc, abbbbc.............

o Alternatively, the same set of paths can be denoted by :

ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+abbbbc+...........

o The + sign is understood to mean "or" between the two nodes of interest, paths
ac, or abc, or abbc, and so on can be taken.
o Any expression that consists of path names and "OR"s and which denotes a set
of paths between two nodes is called a "Path Expression.".
• PATH PRODUCTS:
o The name of a path that consists of two successive path segments is
conveniently expressed by the concatenation or Path Product of the segment
names.
o For example, if X and Y are defined as X=abcde,Y=fghij,then the path
corresponding to X followed by Y is denoted by

XY=abcdefghij

o Similarly,
o YX=fghijabcde
o aX=aabcde
o Xa=abcdea
XaX=abcdeaabcde

o If X and Y represent sets of paths or path expressions, their product represents

the set of paths that can be obtained by following every element of X by any
element of Y in all possible ways. For example,
o X = abc + def + ghi
o Y = uvw + z

Then,

XY = abcuvw + defuvw + ghiuvw + abcz + defz + ghiz

o If a link or segment name is repeated, that fact is denoted by an exponent. The

exponent's value denotes the number of repetitions:
o a1 = a; a2 = aa; a3 = aaa; an = aaaa . . . n
times.

Similarly, if

X = abcde

then

X1 = abcde
X2 = abcdeabcde = (abcde)2
X3 = abcdeabcdeabcde = (abcde)2abcde
= abcde(abcde)2 = (abcde)3

o The path product is not commutative (that is XY!=YX).

o The path product is Associative.

RULE 1: A(BC)=(AB)C=ABC

where A,B,C are path names, set of path names or path expressions.

o The zeroth power of a link name, path product, or path expression is also
needed for completeness. It is denoted by the numeral "1" and denotes the
"path" whose length is zero - that is, the path that doesn't have any links.
o a0 = 1
 o X0 = 1
• PATH SUMS:
o The "+" sign was used to denote the fact that path names were part of the
same set of paths.
o The "PATH SUM" denotes paths in parallel between nodes.
o Links a and b in Figure 5.1a are parallel paths and are denoted by a + b.
Similarly, links c and d are parallel paths between the next two nodes and are
denoted by c + d.
o The set of all paths between nodes 1 and 2 can be thought of as a set of parallel
paths and denoted by eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf.
o If X and Y are sets of paths that lie between the same pair of nodes, then X+Y
denotes the UNION of those set of paths. For example, in Figure 5.2:

The first set of parallel paths is denoted by X + Y + d and the second set by U +
V + W + h + i + j. The set of all paths in this flowgraph is f(X + Y + d)g(U + V + W
+ h + i + j)k

o The path is a set union operation, it is clearly Commutative and Associative.

o RULE 2: X+Y=Y+X
o RULE 3: (X+Y)+Z=X+(Y+Z)=X+Y+Z

• DISTRIBUTIVE LAWS:
o The product and sum operations are distributive, and the ordinary rules of
multiplication apply; that is

RULE 4: A(B+C)=AB+AC and (B+C)D=BD+CD

o Applying these rules to the below Figure 5.1a yields

o e(a+b)(c+d)f=e(ac+ad+bc+bd)f =
eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf
• ABSORPTION RULE:
o If X and Y denote the same set of paths, then the union of these sets is
unchanged; consequently,

RULE 5: X+X=X (Absorption Rule)

 o If a set consists of paths names and a member of that set is added to it, the
"new" name, which is already in that set of names, contributes nothing and can
be ignored.
o For example,
o if X=a+aa+abc+abcd+def then
X+a = X+aa = X+abc = X+abcd = X+def = X

It follows that any arbitrary sum of identical path expressions reduces to the
same path expression.

• LOOPS:
o Loops can be understood as an infinite set of parallel paths. Say that the loop
consists of a single link b. then the set of all paths through that loop point is
b0+b1+b2+b3+b4+b5+..............

o This potentially infinite sum is denoted by b* for an individual link and by X*

when X is a path expression.

o The path expression for the above figure is denoted by the notation:

ab*c=ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+................

o Evidently,

aa*=a*a=a+ and XX*=X*X=X+

 o It is more convenient to denote the fact that a loop cannot be taken more than
a certain, say n, number of times.
o A bar is used under the exponent to denote the fact as follows:

Xn = X0+X1+X2 +X3 +X4 +X5 +..................+Xn

• RULES 6 - 16:
o The following rules can be derived from the previous rules:
o RULE 6: Xn + Xm = Xn if n>m
RULE 6: Xn + Xm = Xm if m>n
RULE 7: XnXm = Xn+m
RULE 8: XnX* = X*Xn = X*
RULE 9: XnX+ = X+Xn = X+
RULE 10: X*X+ = X+ X* = X+
RULE 11: 1 + 1 = 1
RULE 12: 1X = X1 = X
Following or preceding a set of paths by a path of zero length does not change
the set.
RULE 13: 1n = 1n = 1* = 1+ = 1
No matter how often you traverse a path of zero length,It is a path of zero
length.
RULE 14: 1++1 = 1*=1
The null set of paths is denoted by the numeral 0. it obeys the following rules:
RULE 15: X+0=0+X=X
RULE 16: 0X=X0=0
If you block the paths of a graph for or aft by a graph that has no paths , there
wont be any paths.

REDUCTION PROCEDURE:

• REDUCTION PROCEDURE ALGORITHM:

o This section presents a reduction procedure for converting a flowgraph whose
links are labeled with names into a path expression that denotes the set of all
entry/exit paths in that flowgraph. The procedure is a node-by-node removal
algorithm.
o The steps in Reduction Algorithm are as follows:
1. Combine all serial links by multiplying their path expressions.
2. Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
3. Remove all self-loops (from any node to itself) by replacing them
with a link of the form X*, where X is the path expression of the link
in that loop.

STEPS 4 - 8 ARE IN THE ALGORIHTM'S LOOP:

4. Select any node for removal other than the initial or final node.
Replace it with a set of equivalent links whose path expressions
 correspond to all the ways you can form a product of the set of
inlinks with the set of outlinks of that node.
5. Combine any remaining serial links by multiplying their path
expressions.
6. Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
7. Remove all self-loops as in step 3.
8. Does the graph consist of a single link between the entry node and
the exit node? If yes, then the path expression for that link is a path
expression for the original flowgraph; otherwise, return to step 4.
o A flowgraph can have many equivalent path expressions between a given pair
of nodes; that is, there are many different ways to generate the set of all paths
between two nodes without affecting the content of that set.
o The appearance of the path expression depends, in general, on the order in
which nodes are removed.
• CROSS-TERM STEP (STEP 4):
o The cross - term step is the fundamental step of the reduction algorithm.
o It removes a node, thereby reducing the number of nodes by one.
o Successive applications of this step eventually get you down to one entry and
one exit node. The following diagram shows the situation at an arbitrary node
that has been selected for removal:

o From the above diagram, one can infer:

o (a + b)(c + d + e) = ac + ad + + ae +
bc + bd + be

• LOOP REMOVAL OPERATIONS:

o There are two ways of looking at the loop-removal operation:
 o In the first way, we remove the self-loop and then multiply all outgoing links by
Z*.
o In the second way, we split the node into two equivalent nodes, call them A and
A' and put in a link between them whose path expression is Z*. Then we
remove node A' using steps 4 and 5 to yield outgoing links whose path
expressions are Z*X and Z*Y.
• A REDUCTION PROCEDURE - EXAMPLE:
o Let us see by applying this algorithm to the following graph where we remove
several nodes in order; that is

o Remove node 10 by applying step 4 and combine by step 5 to yield

o Remove node 9 by applying step4 and 5 to yield

o Remove node 7 by steps 4 and 5, as follows:

o Remove node 8 by steps 4 and 5, to obtain:

o PARALLEL TERM (STEP 6):

Removal of node 8 above led to a pair of parallel links between nodes 4 and 5.
combine them to create a path expression for an equivalent link whose path
expression is c+gkh; that is

o LOOP TERM (STEP 7):

Removing node 4 leads to a loop term. The graph has now been replaced with
the following equivalent simpler graph:
o Continue the process by applying the loop-removal step as follows:

o Removing node 5 produces:

o Remove the loop at node 6 to yield:

o Remove node 3 to yield:

o Removing the loop and then node 6 result in the following expression:
o
a(bgjf)*b(c+gkh)d((ilhd)*imf(bjgf)*b(c+gkh)d)*(ilh
d)*e

o You can practice by applying the algorithm on the following flowgraphs and
generate their respective path expressions:

TOP
APPLICATIONS:

• APPLICATIONS:
o The purpose of the node removal algorithm is to present one very generalized
concept- the path expression and way of getting it.
o Every application follows this common pattern:
1. Convert the program or graph into a path expression.
2. Identify a property of interest and derive an appropriate set of
"arithmetic" rules that characterizes the property.
3. Replace the link names by the link weights for the property of
interest. The path expression has now been converted to an
expression in some algebra, such as ordinary algebra, regular
expressions, or boolean algebra. This algebraic expression
summarizes the property of interest over the set of all paths.
4. Simplify or evaluate the resulting "algebraic" expression to answer
the question you asked.
• HOW MANY PATHS IN A FLOWGRAPH ?
o The question is not simple. Here are some ways you could ask it:
1. What is the maximum number of different paths possible?
2. What is the fewest number of paths possible?
3. How many different paths are there really?
4. What is the average number of paths?
o Determining the actual number of different paths is an inherently difficult
problem because there could be unachievable paths resulting from correlated
and dependent predicates.
o If we know both of these numbers (maximum and minimum number of
possible paths) we have a good idea of how complete our testing is.
o Asking for "the average number of paths" is meaningless.
• MAXIMUM PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:
o Label each link with a link weight that corresponds to the number of paths that
link represents.
o Also mark each loop with the maximum number of times that loop can be
taken. If the answer is infinite, you might as well stop the analysis because it is
clear that the maximum number of paths will be infinite.
o There are three cases of interest: parallel links, serial links, and loops.
o This arithmetic is an ordinary algebra. The weight is the number of paths in
each set.
o EXAMPLE:
■ The following is a reasonably well-structured program.

Each link represents a single link and consequently is given a weight

of "1" to start. Lets say the outer loop will be taken exactly four times
and inner Loop Can be taken zero or three times Its path expression,
with a little work, is:

Path expression:
a(b+c)d{e(fi)*fgj(m+l)k}*e(fi)*fgh

■ A: The flow graph should be annotated by replacing the link name

with the maximum of paths through that link (1) and also note the
number of times for looping.
■ B: Combine the first pair of parallel loops outside the loop and also
the pair in the outer loop.
■ C: Multiply the things out and remove nodes to clear the clutter.
 ■ For the Inner Loop:
D:Calculate the total weight of inner loop, which can execute a min.
of 0 times and max. of 3 times. So, it inner loop can be evaluated as
follows:

13 = 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4

■ E: Multiply the link weights inside the loop: 1 X 4 = 4

■ F: Evaluate the loop by multiplying the link wieghts: 2 X 4 = 8.
■ G: Simpifying the loop further results in the total maximum number
of paths in the flowgraph:

2 X 84 X 2 = 32,768.

o Alternatively, you could have substituted a "1" for each link in the path
expression and then simplified, as follows:

a(b+c)d{e(fi)*fgj(m+l)k}*e(fi)*fgh
= 1(1 + 1)1(1(1 x 1)3 1 x 1 x 1(1 + 1)1) 41(1 x 1)31 x 1 x 1
= 2(131 x (2))413
= 2(4 x 2)4 x 4
= 2 x 84 x 4 = 32,768

o This is the same result we got graphically.

o Actually, the outer loop should be taken exactly four times. That doesn't mean it
will be taken zero or four times. Consequently, there is a superfluous "4" on the
 outlink in the last step. Therefore the maximum number of different paths is
8192 rather than 32,768.
• STRUCTURED FLOWGRAPH:
o Structured code can be defined in several different ways that do not involve ad-
hoc rules such as not using GOTOs.
o A structured flowgraph is one that can be reduced to a single link by successive
application of the transformations of Figure 5.7.

o The node-by-node reduction procedure can also be used as a test for

structured code.
o Flow graphs that DO NOT contain one or more of the graphs shown below
(Figure 5.8) as subgraphs are structured.
. Jumping into loops
. Jumping out of loops
. Branching into decisions
. Branching out of decisions
• LOWER PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:
o A lower bound on the number of paths in a routine can be approximated for
structured flow graphs.
o The arithmetic is as follows:
o The values of the weights are the number of members in a set of paths.
o EXAMPLE:
■ Applying the arithmetic to the earlier example gives us the identical
steps unitl step 3 (C) as below:

■ From Step 4, the it would be different from the previous example:

 ■ If you observe the original graph, it takes at least two paths to cover
and that it can be done in two paths.
■ If you have fewer paths in your test plan than this minimum you
probably haven't covered. It's another check.
• CALCULATING THE PROBABILITY:
o Path selection should be biased toward the low - rather than the
high-probability paths.
o This raises an interesting question:

This question can be answered under suitable assumptions, primarily that all
probabilities involved are independent, which is to say that all decisions are
independent and uncorrelated.
o We use the same algorithm as before : node-by-node removal of uninteresting
nodes.
o Weights, Notations and Arithmetic:
■ Probabilities can come into the act only at decisions (including
decisions associated with loops).
■ Annotate each outlink with a weight equal to the probability of going
in that direction.
■ Evidently, the sum of the outlink probabilities must equal 1
■ For a simple loop, if the loop will be taken a mean of N times, the
looping probability is N/(N + 1) and the probability of not looping is
1/(N + 1).
■ A link that is not part of a decision node has a probability of 1.
■ The arithmetic rules are those of ordinary arithmetic.

■ In this table, in case of a loop, PA is the probability of the link leaving

the loop and PL is the probability of looping.
■ The rules are those of ordinary probability theory.
1. If you can do something either from column A with a
probability of PA or from column B with a probability PB,
then the probability that you do either is PA + PB.
2. For the series case, if you must do both things, and their
probabilities are independent (as assumed), then the
probability that you do both is the product of their
probabilities.
■ For example, a loop node has a looping probability of PL and a
probability of not looping of PA, which is obviously equal to I - PL.

■ Following the above rule, all we've done is replace the outgoing
probability with 1 - so why the complicated rule? After a few steps in
 which you've removed nodes, combined parallel terms, removed
loops and the like, you might find something like this:

because PL + PA + PB + PC = 1, 1 - PL = PA + PB + PC, and

which is what we've postulated for any decision. In other words,

division by 1 - PL renormalizes the outlink probabilities so that their
sum equals unity after the loop is removed.

o EXAMPLE:
■ Here is a complicated bit of logic. We want to know the probability
associated with cases A, B, and C.

■ Let us do this in three parts, starting with case A. Note that the sum
of the probabilities at each decision node is equal to 1. Start by
throwing away anything that isn't on the way to case A, and then
apply the reduction procedure. To avoid clutter, we usually leave out
probabilities equal to 1.

CASE A:
■ Case B is simpler:
■ Case C is similar and should yield a probability of 1 - 0.125 - 0.158 =
0.717:

■ This checks. It's a good idea when doing this sort of thing to
calculate all the probabilities and to verify that the sum of the
routine's exit probabilities does equal 1.
 ■ If it doesn't, then you've made calculation error or, more likely,
you've left out some branching probability.
■ How about path probabilities? That's easy. Just trace the path of
interest and multiply the probabilities as you go.
■ Alternatively, write down the path name and do the indicated
arithmetic operation.
■ Say that a path consisted of links a, b, c, d, e, and the associated
probabilities were .2, .5, 1., .01, and I respectively.
Path would have a probability of 5 x 10-10.
■ Long paths are usually improbable.
• MEAN PROCESSING TIME OF A ROUTINE:
o Given the execution time of all statements or instructions for every link in a
flowgraph and the probability for each direction for all decisions are to find the
mean processing time for the routine as a whole.
o The model has two weights associated with every link: the processing time for
that link, denoted by T, and the probability of that link P.
o The arithmetic rules for calculating the mean time:

o EXAMPLE:
. Start with the original flow graph annotated with probabilities and
processing time.

. Combine the parallel links of the outer loop. The result is just the
mean of the processing times for the links because there aren't any
other links leaving the first node. Also combine the pair of links at the
beginning of the flowgraph..
. Combine as many serial links as you can.

. Use the cross-term step to eliminate a node and to create the inner
self - loop.

. Finally, you can get the mean processing time, by using the
arithmetic rules as follows:
• PUSH/POP, GET/RETURN:
o This model can be used to answer several different questions that can turn up
in debugging.
o It can also help decide which test cases to design.
o The question is:

Given a pair of complementary operations such as PUSH (the stack) and

POP (the stack), considering the set of all possible paths through the routine,
what is the net effect of the routine? PUSH or POP? How many times? Under
what conditions?

o Here are some other examples of complementary operations to which this

model applies:
o GET/RETURN a resource block.
o OPEN/CLOSE a file.
START/STOP a device or process.

o EXAMPLE 1 (PUSH / POP):

■ Here is the Push/Pop Arithmetic:

■ The numeral 1 is used to indicate that nothing of interest (neither
PUSH nor POP) occurs on a given link.
■ "H" denotes PUSH and "P" denotes POP. The operations are
commutative, associative, and distributive.

■ Consider the following flowgraph:

P(P + 1)1{P(HH)n1HP1(P + H)1}n2 P(HH)n1HPH

■ Simplifying by using the arithmetic tables,

■ =(P2 + P){P(HH)n1(P + H)}n1(HH)n1
■ =(P2 + P){H2n1 (P2 + 1)}n2 H2n1
■ Below Table 5.9 shows several combinations of values for the two
looping terms - M1 is the number of times the inner loop will be
taken and M2 the number of times the outer loop will be taken.
 ■ These expressions state that the stack will be popped only if the
inner loop is not taken.
■ The stack will be left alone only if the inner loop is iterated once, but
it may also be pushed.
■ For all other values of the inner loop, the stack will only be pushed.
o EXAMPLE 2 (GET / RETURN):

■ Exactly the same arithmetic tables used for previous example are
used for GET / RETURN a buffer block or resource, or, in fact, for
any pair of complementary operations in which the total number of
operations in either direction is cumulative.
■ The arithmetic tables for GET/RETURN are:

"G" denotes GET and "R" denotes RETURN.

■ Consider the following flowgraph:

■ G(G + R)G(GR)*GGR*R
= G(G + R)G3R*R
= (G + R)G3 R*
= (G4 + G2)R*
■ This expression specifies the conditions under which the resources
will be balanced on leaving the routine.
■ If the upper branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop
must be taken four times.
■ If the lower branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop
must be taken twice.
■ For any other values, the routine will not balance. Therefore, the first
loop does not have to be instrumented to verify this behavior
because its impact should be nil.
• LIMITATIONS AND SOLUTIONS:
 o The main limitation to these applications is the problem of unachievable paths.
o The node-by-node reduction procedure, and most graph-theory-based
algorithms work well when all paths are possible, but may provide misleading
results when some paths are unachievable.
o The approach to handling unachievable paths (for any application) is to
partition the graph into subgraphs so that all paths in each of the subgraphs are
achievable.
o The resulting subgraphs may overlap, because one path may be common to
several different subgraphs.
o Each predicate's truth-functional value potentially splits the graph into two
subgraphs. For n predicates, there could be as many as 2n subgraphs.

TOP

REGULAR EXPRESSIONS AND FLOW ANOMALY DETECTION:

TOP

• THE PROBLEM:
o The generic flow-anomaly detection problem (note: not just data-flow
anomalies, but any flow anomaly) is that of looking for a specific sequence of
options considering all possible paths through a routine.
o Let the operations be SET and RESET, denoted by s and r respectively, and we
want to know if there is a SET followed immediately a SET or a RESET followed
immediately by a RESET (an or an sequence).
o Some more application examples:
1. A file can be opened (o), closed (c), read (r), or written (w). If the file
is read or written to after it's been closed, the sequence is
nonsensical. Therefore, and are anomalous. Similarly, if the
file is read before it's been written, just after opening, we may have
a bug. Therefore, is also anomalous. Furthermore, and ,
though not actual bugs, are a waste of time and therefore should
also be examined.
2. A tape transport can do a rewind (d), fast-forward (f), read (r), write
(w), stop (p), and skip (k). There are rules concerning the use of the
transport; for example, you cannot go from rewind to fast-forward
without an intervening stop or from rewind or fast-forward to read
or write without an intervening stop. The following sequences are
anomalous: , , , , and . Does the flowgraph lead to
anomalous sequences on any path? If so, what sequences and
under what circumstances?
3. The data-flow anomalies discussed in Unit 4 requires us to detect
the , , , and sequences. Are there paths with anomalous
data flows?
• THE METHOD:
o Annotate each link in the graph with the appropriate operator or the null
operator 1.
o Simplify things to the extent possible, using the fact that a + a = a and 12 = 1.
 o You now have a regular expression that denotes all the possible sequences of
operators in that graph. You can now examine that regular expression for the
sequences of interest.
o EXAMPLE: Let A, B, C, be nonempty sets of character sequences whose
smallest string is at least one character long. Let T be a two-character string of
characters. Then if T is a substring of (i.e., if T appears within) ABnC, then T will
appear in AB2C. (HUANG's Theorem)
o As an example, let

A =
B =
C =
T =

The theorem states that will appear in if it appears in .

o However, let

A = + +
B = + ( + )
C =
T =

Is it obvious that there is a 4 sequence in ABnC? The theorem states that we

have only to look at

( + + )[ + ( + )]2

Multiplying out the expression and simplifying shows that there is

no 4 sequence.
o Incidentally, the above observation is an informal proof of the wisdom of
looping twice discussed in Unit 2. Because data-flow anomalies are
represented by two-character sequences, it follows the above theorem that
looping twice is what you need to do to find such anomalies.
• LIMITATIONS:
o Huang's theorem can be easily generalized to cover sequences of greater
length than two characters. Beyond three characters, though, things get
complex and this method has probably reached its utilitarian limit for manual
application.
o There are some nice theorems for finding sequences that occur at the
beginnings and ends of strings but no nice algorithms for finding strings buried
in an expression.
o Static flow analysis methods can't determine whether a path is or is not
achievable. Unless the flow analysis includes symbolic execution or similar
techniques, the impact of unachievable paths will not be included in the
analysis.
o The flow-anomaly application, for example, doesn't tell us that there will be a
flow anomaly - it tells us that if the path is achievable, then there will be a flow
anomaly. Such analytical problems go away, of course, if you take the trouble
to design routines for which all paths are achievable.

Unit-3

LOGIC BASED TESTING:

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

• Understand the concept of Logic based testing.

• Learn about Decision Tables and their application
• Understand the use of decision tables in test-case design and know their limitations.
• Understand and interpret KV Charts and know their limitations.
• Learn how to transform specifications into sentences and map them into KV charts.
• Understand the importance of dont-care conditions.

OVERVIEW OF LOGIC BASED TESTING :

• INTRODUCTION:
o The functional requirements of many programs can be specified by decision
tables, which provide a useful basis for program and test design.
o Consistency and completeness can be analyzed by using boolean algebra,
which can also be used as a basis for test design. Boolean algebra is trivialized
by using Karnaugh-Veitch charts.
o "Logic" is one of the most often used words in programmers' vocabularies but
one of their least used techniques.
o Boolean algebra is to logic as arithmetic is to mathematics. Without it, the tester
or programmer is cut off from many test and design techniques and tools that
incorporate those techniques.
o Logic has been, for several decades, the primary tool of hardware logic
designers.
o Many test methods developed for hardware logic can be adapted to software
logic testing. Because hardware testing automation is 10 to 15 years ahead of
software testing automation, hardware testing methods and its associated
theory is a fertile ground for software testing methods.
o As programming and test techniques have improved, the bugs have shifted
closer to the process front end, to requirements and their specifications. These
bugs range from 8% to 30% of the total and because they're first-in and
last-out, they're the costliest of all.
o The trouble with specifications is that they're hard to express.
o Boolean algebra (also known as the sentential calculus) is the most basic of all
logic systems.
o Higher-order logic systems are needed and used for formal specifications.
o Much of logical analysis can be and is embedded in tools. But these tools
incorporate methods to simplify, transform, and check specifications, and the
methods are to a large extent based on boolean algebra.
o KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEM:
■ The knowledge-based system (also expert system, or "artificial
intelligence" system) has become the programming construct of
choice for many applications that were once considered very
difficult.
■ Knowledge-based systems incorporate knowledge from a
knowledge domain such as medicine, law, or civil engineering into a
database. The data can then be queried and interacted with to
provide solutions to problems in that domain.
 ■ One implementation of knowledge-based systems is to incorporate
the expert's knowledge into a set of rules. The user can then provide
data and ask questions based on that data.
■ The user's data is processed through the rule base to yield
conclusions (tentative or definite) and requests for more data. The
processing is done by a program called the inference engine.
■ Understanding knowledge-based systems and their validation
problems requires an understanding of formal logic.
o Decision tables are extensively used in business data processing;
Decision-table preprocessors as extensions to COBOL are in common use;
boolean algebra is embedded in the implementation of these processors.
o Although programmed tools are nice to have, most of the benefits of boolean
algebra can be reaped by wholly manual means if you have the right
conceptual tool: the Karnaugh-Veitch diagram is that conceptual tool.

DECISION TABLES:

• Figure 6.1 is a limited - entry decision table. It consists of four areas called the condition
stub, the condition entry, the action stub, and the action entry.
• Each column of the table is a rule that specifies the conditions under which the actions
named in the action stub will take place.
• The condition stub is a list of names of conditions.

• A more general decision table can be as below:

• A rule specifies whether a condition should or should not be met for the rule to be satisfied.
"YES" means that the condition must be met, "NO" means that the condition must not be
met, and "I" means that the condition plays no part in the rule, or it is immaterial to that rule.
• The action stub names the actions the routine will take or initiate if the rule is satisfied. If
the action entry is "YES", the action will take place; if "NO", the action will not take place.
• The table in Figure 6.1 can be translated as follows:

Action 1 will take place if conditions 1 and 2 are met and if conditions 3 and 4 are not met
(rule 1) or if conditions 1, 3, and 4 are met (rule 2).
• "Condition" is another word for predicate.
• Decision-table uses "condition" and "satisfied" or "met". Let us use "predicate" and TRUE /
FALSE.
• Now the above translations become:
1. Action 1 will be taken if predicates 1 and 2 are true and if predicates 3 and 4 are
false (rule 1), or if predicates 1, 3, and 4 are true (rule 2).
2. Action 2 will be taken if the predicates are all false, (rule 3).
3. Action 3 will take place if predicate 1 is false and predicate 4 is true (rule 4).

• In addition to the stated rules, we also need a Default Rule that specifies the default action
to be taken when all other rules fail. The default rules for Table in Figure 6.1 is shown in
Figure 6.3
• DECISION-TABLE PROCESSORS:
o Decision tables can be automatically translated into code and, as such, are a
higher-order language
o If the rule is satisfied, the corresponding action takes place
o Otherwise, rule 2 is tried. This process continues until either a satisfied rule
results in an action or no rule is satisfied and the default action is taken
o Decision tables have become a useful tool in the programmers kit, in business
data processing.
• DECISION-TABLES AS BASIS FOR TEST CASE DESIGN:
. The specification is given as a decision table or can be easily converted into
one.
. The order in which the predicates are evaluated does not affect interpretation
of the rules or the resulting action - i.e., an arbitrary permutation of the
predicate order will not, or should not, affect which action takes place.
. The order in which the rules are evaluated does not affect the resulting action -
i.e., an arbitrary permutation of rules will not, or should not, affect which action
takes place.
. Once a rule is satisfied and an action selected, no other rule need be examined.
. If several actions can result from satisfying a rule, the order in which the actions
are executed doesn't matter
• DECISION-TABLES AND STRUCTURE:
o Decision tables can also be used to examine a program's structure.
o Figure 6.4 shows a program segment that consists of a decision tree.
o These decisions, in various combinations, can lead to actions 1, 2, or 3.
o If the decision appears on a path, put in a YES or NO as appropriate. If the
decision does not appear on the path, put in an I, Rule 1 does not contain
decision C, therefore its entries are: YES, YES, I, YES.
o The corresponding decision table is shown in Table 6.1

RULE 1 RULE 2 RULE 3 RULE 4 RULE 5 RULE 6

CONDITION A YES YES YES NO NO NO
CONDITION B YES NO YES I I I
CONDITION C I I I YES NO NO
CONDITION D YES I NO I YES NO
ACTION 1 YES YES NO NO NO NO
ACTION 2 NO NO YES YES YES NO
ACTION 3 NO NO NO NO NO YES

o
o As an example, expanding the immaterial cases results as below:
 o Similalrly, If we expand the immaterial cases for the above Table 6.1, it results in
Table 6.2 as below:

R1 RULE 2 R3 RULE 4 R5 R6

CONDITION A YY YYYY YY NNNN NN NN

CONDITION B YY NNNN YY YYNN NY YN
CONDITION C YN NNYY YN YYYY NN NN
CONDITION D YY YNNY NN NYYN YY NN

o
o Sixteen cases are represented in Table 6.1, and no case appears twice.
o Consequently, the flowgraph appears to be complete and consistent.
o As a first check, before you look for all sixteen combinations, count the number
of Y's and N's in each row. They should be equal. We can find the bug that way.
• ANOTHER EXAMPLE - A TROUBLE SOME PROGRAM:

o Consider the following specification whose putative flowgraph is shown in

Figure 6.5:
1. If condition A is met, do process A1 no matter what other actions are
taken or what other conditions are met.
2. If condition B is met, do process A2 no matter what other actions
are taken or what other conditions are met.
3. If condition C is met, do process A3 no matter what other actions
are taken or what other conditions are met.
4. If none of the conditions is met, then do processes A1, A2, and A3.
5. When more than one process is done, process A1 must be done first,
then A2, and then A3. The only permissible cases are: (A1), (A2),
(A3), (A1,A3), (A2,A3) and (A1,A2,A3).
o Figure 6.5 shows a sample program with a bug.
 o The programmer tried to force all three processes to be executed for the
cases but forgot that the B and C predicates would be done again, thereby
bypassing processes A2 and A3.
o Table 6.3 shows the conversion of this flowgraph into a decision table after
expansion.

PATH EXPRESSIONS:

• GENERAL:
o Logic-based testing is structural testing when it's applied to structure (e.g.,
control flowgraph of an implementation); it's functional testing when it's applied
to a specification.
o In logic-based testing we focus on the truth values of control flow predicates.
o A predicate is implemented as a process whose outcome is a truth-functional
value.
o For our purpose, logic-based testing is restricted to binary predicates.
o We start by generating path expressions by path tracing as in Unit V, but this
time, our purpose is to convert the path expressions into boolean algebra, using
the predicates' truth values (e.g., A and ) as weights.
• BOOLEAN ALGEBRA:
o STEPS:
1. Label each decision with an uppercase letter that represents the
truth value of the predicate. The YES or TRUE branch is labeled with
a letter (say A) and the NO or FALSE branch with the same letter
overscored (say ).
2. The truth value of a path is the product of the individual labels.
Concatenation or products mean "AND". For example, the
straight-through path of Figure 6.5, which goes via nodes 3, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, and 2, has a truth value of ABC. The path via nodes 3, 6, 7,
9 and 2 has a value of .
3. If two or more paths merge at a node, the fact is expressed by use
of a plus sign (+) which means "OR".
o Using this convention, the truth-functional values for several of the nodes can
be expressed in terms of segments from previous nodes. Use the node name
to identify the point.

o There are only two numbers in boolean algebra: zero (0) and one (1). One
means "always true" and zero means "always false".
o RULES OF BOOLEAN ALGEBRA:
■ Boolean algebra has three operators: X (AND), + (OR) and (NOT)
■ X : meaning AND. Also called multiplication. A statement such as AB
(A X B) means "A and B are both true". This symbol is usually left out
as in ordinary algebra.
■ + : meaning OR. "A + B" means "either A is true or B is true or both".
■ meaning NOT. Also negation or complementation. This is read as
either "not A" or "A bar". The entire expression under the bar is
negated.
■ The following are the laws of boolean algebra:
o In all of the above, a letter can represent a single sentence or an entire boolean
algebra expression.
o Individual letters in a boolean algebra expression are called Literals (e.g. A,B)
o The product of several literals is called a product term (e.g., ABC, DE).
o An arbitrary boolean expression that has been multiplied out so that it consists
of the sum of products (e.g., ABC + DEF + GH) is said to be
in sum-of-products form.
o The result of simplifications (using the rules above) is again in the sum of
product form and each product term in such a simplified version is called
a prime implicant. For example, ABC + AB + DEF reduces by rule 20 to AB +
DEF; that is, AB and DEF are prime implicants.
o The path expressions of Figure 6.5 can now be simplified by applying the rules.
o The following are the laws of boolean algebra:
 o Similarly,

o The deviation from the specification is now clear. The functions should have
been:

• Loops complicate things because we may have to solve a boolean equation to determine
what predicate-value combinations lead to where.

KV CHARTS:
• INTRODUCTION:
o If you had to deal with expressions in four, five, or six variables, you could get
bogged down in the algebra and make as many errors in designing test cases
as there are bugs in the routine you're testing.
o Karnaugh-Veitch chart reduces boolean algebraic manipulations to graphical
trivia.
o Beyond six variables these diagrams get cumbersome and may not be
effective.
• SINGLE VARIABLE:
o Figure 6.6 shows all the boolean functions of a single variable and their
equivalent representation as a KV chart.

o The charts show all possible truth values that the variable A can have.
o A "1" means the variable’s value is "1" or TRUE. A "0" means that the variable's
value is 0 or FALSE.
o The entry in the box (0 or 1) specifies whether the function that the chart
represents is true or false for that value of the variable.
o We usually do not explicitly put in 0 entries but specify only the conditions under
which the function is true.
• TWO VARIABLES:
o Figure 6.7 shows eight of the sixteen possible functions of two variables.
o Each box corresponds to the combination of values of the variables for the row
and column of that box.
o A pair may be adjacent either horizontally or vertically but not diagonally.
o Any variable that changes in either the horizontal or vertical direction does not
appear in the expression.
o In the fifth chart, the B variable changes from 0 to 1 going down the column,
and because the A variable's value for the column is 1, the chart is equivalent to
a simple A.
o Figure 6.8 shows the remaining eight functions of two variables.
o The first chart has two 1's in it, but because they are not adjacent, each must be
taken separately.
o They are written using a plus sign.
o It is clear now why there are sixteen functions of two variables.
o Each box in the KV chart corresponds to a combination of the variables' values.
o That combination might or might not be in the function (i.e., the box
corresponding to that combination might have a 1 or 0 entry).
 o Since n variables lead to 2n combinations of 0 and 1 for the variables, and each
such combination (box) can be filled or not filled, leading to 22n ways of doing
this.
o Consequently for one variable there are 221 = 4 functions, 16 functions of 2
variables, 256 functions of 3 variables, 16,384 functions of 4 variables, and so
on.
o Given two charts over the same variables, arranged the same way, their
product is the term by term product, their sum is the term by term sum, and the
negation of a chart is gotten by reversing all the 0 and 1 entries in the chart.

OR

• THREE VARIABLES:
o KV charts for three variables are shown below.
o As before, each box represents an elementary term of three variables with a
bar appearing or not appearing according to whether the row-column heading
for that box is 0 or 1.
o A three-variable chart can have groupings of 1, 2, 4, and 8 boxes.
o A few examples will illustrate the principles:
 o You'll notice that there are several ways to circle the boxes into
maximum-sized covering groups.
• FOUR VARIABLES AND MORE:
o The same principles hold for four and more variables.