20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

UNIT I
Introduction: Purpose of testing, Dichotomies, model for testing, consequences of bugs,
taxonomy of bugs.
Flow graphs and Path testing: Basics concepts of path testing, predicates, path
predicates and achievable paths, path sensitizing, path instrumentation, application of path
testing

Introduction
Testing is the process of exercising or evaluating a system or system components by manual
or automated means to verify that it satisfies specified requirements

Software testing methodologies are the various strategies or approaches used to test an
application to ensure it behaves and looks as expected. These encompass everything from
front to back-end testing, including unit and system testing

Purpose of testing
Test design and testing takes longer than program design and coding. In testing each and
every module is tested. Testing is a systematic approach that the given one is correct or not.
Testing find out the bugs in a given software.

Productivity and Quality in Software

Once in production, each and every stage is subjected to quality control and testing from
component source inspection to final testing before shipping. If flaws are discovered at any
stage, that part will be discarded or cycled back for rework and correction. The assembly
line’s productivity is measured by the sum of the cost of the materials, the rework, discarded
components and the cost of quality assurance and testing.

Note: By testing we get the quality of software. If we give the guarantee for the quality of a
product then it is called Quality Assurance.

Goals for Testing

 Testing and test design as a parts of quality assurance, should also focus on bug
prevention. To the extent that testing and test design do not prevent bugs, they should
be able to discover symptoms caused by bugs.
 Bug prevention is testing first goal. Bug prevention is better than the detection and
correction. There is no retesting and no time wastage.
 The act of testing, the act of designing tests is one of the bug preventions. Before
coding test can be performed. “Test, then code”. Testing discover and eliminates bugs
before coding.

Bug prevention – Primary goal

Bug discovery – Secondary goal
Phases in a Tester’s Mental Life

Why Testing?

Phase 0: There’s no difference between testing and debugging. Here there is no

effective testing, no quality assurance and no quality.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 1

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Phase 1: The purpose of testing is to show that the software works. Testing increases,
software works decreases. There is a difference between testing and debugging. If testing
fails the software doesn’t work.

Phase 2: The purpose of testing is to show that the software doesn’t works. The test reveals
a bug, the programmer corrects it, the test designer designs and executes another test
intended to demonstrate another bug. It is never ending sequence.

Phase 3: The purpose of testing is not to prove anything, but to reduce the perceived risk
of not working to an acceptable value. Here testing implements the quality control. To
the extent that testing catches bugs and to the extent that those bugs are fixed, testing does
improve the product. If a test is passed, then the product’s quality does not change, but
our perception of that quality does.

Note: testing pass or fail reduces our perception of risk about a software product.

Phase 4: Here what testing can do and not to do. The testability is that goal for two reasons:

1. Reduce the labor of testing.

2. Testable code has fewer bugs that code that’s hard to test.

Test design: Design means documenting or modeling. In test design phase the given system
is tested that bugs are present or not. If test design is not formally designed no one is sure
whether there was a bug or not. So, test design is a important one to get the system without
any bugs.

Testing isn’t everything

We must first review, inspect, read, do walkthroughs and then test. The major methods
in decreasing order of effectiveness as follows:
 Inspection methods: It includes walkthroughs, desk checking, formal inspection and
code reading..
 Design style: It includes testability, openness and clarity to prevent bugs.
 Static Analysis Methods: It includes of strong typing and type checking. It eliminates
an entire category of bugs.
 Languages: The source language can help reduce certain kinds of bugs.
Programmers find new kinds of bugs in new languages, so the bug rate seems to be
independent of the languages used.
 Design methodology and Development Environment: Design methodology can
prevent many kinds of bugs. Development process used and the environment in
which what methodology is embedded

Dichotomies
Testing versus Debugging: The phrase “Test and Debug “is treated as a single word.

The purpose of testing is to show that a program has bugs.

The purpose of debugging is find the error or misconception that led to the program’s failure
and to design and implement the program changes that correct the error.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 2

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Note: Debugging usually follows testing, but they differ as to goals, methods and psychology.

Function versus Structure: Tests can be designed from a functional or structural point of
view.

In functional testing the program or system is treated as a blackbox. Black box Testing: Here
we don’t know the inter functionality we knows only about the input and the outcome.

In structural testing does look at the implementation details, as programming style, control
method, source language, database design and coding details. White box Testing: Here inter
functionality is considered

Both Structural and functional tests are useful, both have limitations, and both target different
kinds of bugs. Functional tests 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 the Tester: Designing depends on a system’s structural details. The more
you know about the design, the likelier you are to eliminate useless tests.

Tester, test-team member or test designer contrast to the programmer and program designer.
Testing includes unit testing to unit integration, component testing to component integration,
system testing to system integration.

Modularity versus Efficiency: Both tests and systems can be modular. A module is a
discrete, well defined small component of a system. The smaller the component, the easier is
to understand but every component has interfaces with other components and all component
interfaces are sources of confusion.

Small versus Large: Programming in the large means constructing programs that consist of
many components written by many different persons.

Programming in the small is what we do for ourselves in the privacy of our own offices or as
homework exercises in an undergraduate programming course. Qualitative changes occur
with size and so must testing methods and quality criteria.

The Builder versus the Buyer:

Just as programmers and testers can merge and become one, so can builder and buyer.
 The builder, who designs for and is accountable to
 The buyer, who pays for the system in the hope of profits from providing services to

Model for testing

It includes three models:
 A model of the environment
 A model of the program and
 A model of the expected bugs.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 3

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Environment:
 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.
 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.
 Because the hardware and firmware are stable, it is not smart to blame the
environment for bugs.
Program:
 Most programs are too complicated to understand in detail.
 The concept of the program is to be simplified in order to test it.
 If simple model of the program doesn’t explain the unexpected behavior, 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:
 Bugs are more insidious (deceiving but harmful) than ever we expect them to be.
 An unexpected test result may lead us to change our notion of what a bug is and our
model of bugs.
 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.
Tests:
 Tests are formal procedures, Inputs must be prepared, Outcomes should predict, tests
should be documented, commands need to be executed, and results are to be observed.
All these errors are subjected to error

We do three distinct kinds of testing on a typical software system. They are:

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
M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 4
 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

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.

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 components were
individually satisfactory (after passing component testing), checks the combination of
components are incorrect or inconsistent.
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 behavior.

CONSEQUENCES OF BUGS
Importance of bugs: The importance of bugs depends on frequency, correction cost,
installation cost, and consequences.
 Frequency: How often does that kind of bug occur? Pay more attention to the more
frequent bug types.
 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.
 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.
 Consequences: What are the consequences of the bug? Bug consequences can range
from mild to catastrophic.

A reasonable metric for bug importance is

Importance= ($) = Frequency * (Correction cost + Installation cost + Consequential

cost)
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:
 Mild: The symptoms of the bug offend us aesthetically (gently); a misspelled
output or a misaligned printout.
 Moderate: Outputs are misleading or redundant. The bug impacts the system's
performance.
 Annoying: The system's behavior because of the bug is dehumanizing. Example
Names are truncated or arbitrarily modified.
 Disturbing: It refuses to handle legitimate (authorized / legal) transactions. The ATM

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 5

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

won’t give you money. My credit card is declared invalid.

 Serious: It loses track of its transactions. Not just the transaction itself but the fact that
the transaction occurred. Accountability is lost.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Catastrophic: The decision to shut down is taken out of our hands because the
system fails.
 Infectious: What can be worse than a failed system? One that corrupt other systems
even though it does not fall in itself ; that erodes the social physical environment; that
melts nuclear reactors and starts war.

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.

Requirements, Features and Functionality Bugs: Various categories in Requirements,

Features and Functionality bugs include:

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 percentages to more than 50%, depending on the application
and environment.

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.

Feature Interaction Bugs:

 Providing correct, clear, implementable and testable feature specifications is not
enough.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 6

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

 Features usually come in groups or related features. The features of each group and
the interaction of features within 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.

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.
Short term Support: Specification languages facilitate formalization of
requirements and inconsistency and ambiguity analysis.
Long term Support: Assume that we have a great specification language and that
can be used to create unambiguous, complete specifications with unambiguous
complete tests and 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.

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, spaghetti code, and worst of all, pachinko code.
 One reason for control flow bugs is that this area is amenable (supportive) to
theoretical treatment.

Logic Bugs:
 Bugs in logic, especially those related to misunderstanding how case statements and
logic operators behave singly and combinations
 Also includes evaluation of boolean expressions in deeply nested IF-THEN-
ELSE constructs.

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 greater-than-or-equal etc

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

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 7

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

use, assuming that they are initialized elsewhere, initializing to the wrong format,
representation or type etc

Data-Flow Bugs and Anomalies:

 Most initialization bugs are special case of data flow anomalies.
 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.

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 at least as common as bugs in code, but they are often treated as if they
did not exist at all.

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.

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.

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, and communication links and protocols results in integration bugs.

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.

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

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 8

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

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 do not 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 concepts of path testing

Path Testing:
 Path Testing is the name given to a family of test techniques based on judiciously
selecting a set of test paths through the program.
 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.
 Path testing techniques are the oldest of all structural test techniques.
 Path testing is most applicable to new software for unit testing. It is a structural
technique.
 It requires complete knowledge of the program's structure.
 It is most often used by programmers to unit test their own code.

The Bug Assumption:

 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.
 As an example "GOTO X" where "GOTO Y" had been intended.
 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 indispensable.

Control Flow Graphs:

 The control flow graph is a graphical representation of a program's control structure
 It uses the elements named process blocks, decisions, and junctions.
 The flow graph is similar to the earlier flowchart, with which it is not to be confused.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 9

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Flow Graph Elements: A flow graph contains four different types of elements.
(1) Process Block (2) Decisions (3) Junctions (4) Case Statements

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.

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.
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
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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 10

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: Flow graph Elements

Control Flow Graphs vs. Flowcharts:
 A program's flow chart resembles a control flow graph.
 In flow graphs, we don't show the details of what is in a process block.
 In flow charts every part of the process block is drawn.
 The flowchart focuses on process steps, where as the flow graph focuses on control
flow of the program.
 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 Evolution:
The control flow graph is simplified representation of the program's structure. 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 flow graph (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 flow graph. But this representation is still too busy. We
simplify the notation further to achieve Figure 2.5, where for the first time we can
really see what the control flow looks like

Figure: Program Example (PDL)

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 11

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: One-to-one flowchart for example program in Figure 2.2

Figure: Control Flow graph for example in Figure 2.2

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 12

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: Simplified Flow graph Notation

Figure: Even Simplified Flow graph Notation

The final transformation is shown in Figure 2.6, where we've dropped the node numbers to
achieve an even simpler representation. The way to work with control flow graphs 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:

 Although graphical representations of flow graphs are revealing, the details of the
control flow inside a program they are often inconvenient.
 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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 13

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: Linked List Control Flow graph Notation

FLOWGRAPH - PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE:

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

Figure: Alternative Flow graphs for same logic (Statement "IF (A=0) AND (B=1) THEN
. . .").

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 14

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

An improper translation from flow graph 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:

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.
There are relatively few control flow graph generators.

PATH TESTING - PATHS, NODES AND LINKS:

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.
 A path may go through several junctions, processes, or decisions, one or more times.
 Paths consist of segments.
 The segment is a link - a single process that lies between two nodes.
 A path segment is succession of consecutive links that belongs to some path.
 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.
 The name of a path is the name of the nodes along the path.

FUNDAMENTAL PATH SELECTION CRITERIA:

There are many paths between the entry and exit of a typical routine. 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.

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.
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.
Example: Here is the correct version.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 15

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

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.

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.

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:

Any testing strategy based on paths must at least both exercise every instruction and take
branches in all directions. 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.
So we have explored three different testing criteria or strategies out of a potentially
infinite family of strategies

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 16

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Path Testing (Pinf):

 Execute all possible control flow paths through the program: typically, this is
restricted to all possible entry/exit paths through the program.
 If we achieve this prescription, we are said to have achieved 100% path coverage.
This is the strongest criterion in the path testing strategy family: it is generally
impossible to achieve.

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 cannot 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.

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:

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 17

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: An example flow graph to explain path selection

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 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 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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 18

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

 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.

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.

CASE 1: Single loop, Zero minimum, N maximum, No excluded values

 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?

CASE 2: Single loop, Non-zero minimum, No excluded values

 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.

CASE 3: Single loops with excluded values

 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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 19

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

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:
 Start at the inner most loop. Set all the outer loops to their minimum values.
 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.
 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.
 Continue outward in this manner until all loops have been covered.
 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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 20

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: Example of Loop types

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 21

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Predicates, Path Predicates and Achievable Paths

Predicate: The logical function evaluated at a decision is called Predicate. The direction
taken at a decision depends on the value of decision variable. Some examples are: A>0,
x+y>=90.......

Path Predicate: A predicate associated with a path is called a Path Predicate. For example,
"x is greater than zero", "x+y>=90", "w is either negative or equal to 10 is true" is a sequence
of predicates whose truth values will cause the routine to take a specific path.

Multiway Branches:
 The path taken through a multiway branch such as a computed GOTO's, case
statement, or jump tables cannot be directly expressed in TRUE/FALSE terms.
 Although, it is possible to describe such alternatives by using multi valued logic, an
expedient (practical approach) is to express multiway branches as an equivalent set of
if..then..else statements.
 For example a three way case statement can be written as: If case=1 DO A1 ELSE (IF
Case=2 DO A2 ELSE DO A3 ENDIF)ENDIF.

Inputs:
 In testing, the word input is not restricted to direct inputs, such as variables in a
subroutine call, but includes all data objects referenced by the routine whose values
are fixed prior to entering it.
 For example, inputs in a calling sequence, objects in a data structure, values left in
registers, or any combination of object types.
 The input for a particular test is mapped as a one dimensional array called as an Input
Vector.

Predicate Interpretation
 The simplest predicate depends only on input variables.
 For example if x1,x2 are inputs, the predicate might be x1+x2>=7, given the values of
x1 and x2 the direction taken through the decision is based on the predicate is
determined at input time and does not depend on processing.
 Another example, assume a predicate x1+y>=0 that along a path prior to reaching this
predicate we had the assignment 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.
 Sometimes 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

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 22

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

.........
HEN: IF Y + Z > 0 GOTO ELL ELSE GOTO EMM
The predicate interpretation at HEN depends on the path we took through the first
multiway branch. It yields for the three cases respectively, if Y+7>0, Y-7>0, Y>0.
The path predicates are the specific form of the predicates of the decisions along the selected
path after interpretation.

Independence of Variables and Predicates

 The path predicates take on truth values based on the values of input variables, either
directly or indirectly.
 If a variable's value does not change as a result of processing, that variable is
independent of the processing.
 If the variable's value can change as a result of the processing, the variable is process
dependent.
 A predicate whose truth value can change as a result of the processing is said to be
process dependent and one whose truth value does not change as a result of the
processing is process independent.
 Process dependence of a predicate does not always follow from dependence of the
input variables on which that predicate is based.

Correlation of Variables and Predicates

 Two variables are correlated if every combination of their values cannot be
independently specified.
 Variables whose values can be specified independently without restriction are
called uncorrelated.
 A pair of predicates whose outcomes depend on one or more variables in common are
said to be correlated predicates.

For example, the predicate X==Y is followed by another predicate X+Y == 8. If we select X
and Y values to satisfy the first predicate, we might have forced the 2nd predicate's truth value
to change. Every path through a routine is achievable only if all the predicates in that
routine are uncorrelated.

Path Predicate Expressions

 A path predicate expression is a set of boolean expressions, all of which must be
satisfied to achieve the selected path.
Example:
X1+3X2+17>=0 X3=17
X4-X1>=14X2
 Any set of input values that satisfy all of the conditions of the path predicate
expression will force the routine to the path.
 Sometimes a predicate can have an OR in it.
Example:
A: X5 > 0 E: X6 < 0
B: X1 + 3X2 + 17 B: X1 + 3X2 + 17
>= 0 >= 0
C: X3 = 17 C: X3 = 17
D: X4 - X1 >= 14X2 D: X4 - X1 >= 14X2

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 23

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

 Boolean algebra notation to denote the boolean expression:

ABCD+EBCD=(A+E)BCD

Predicate Coverage
 Compound Predicate: Predicates of the form A OR B, A AND B and more
complicated Boolean expressions are called as compound predicates.
 Sometimes even a simple predicate becomes compound after interpretation. Example:
the predicate if (x=17) whose opposite branch is if x.NE.17 which is equivalent to
x>17. Or. X<17.
 Predicate coverage is being the achieving of all possible combinations of truth values
corresponding to the selected path have been explored under some test.
 As achieving the desired direction at a given decision could still hide bugs in the
associated predicates

Testing Blindness:
 Testing Blindness is a pathological (harmful) situation in which the desired path is
achieved for the wrong reason.
 There are three types of Testing Blindness:

Assignment Blindness:
 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 = 7X = 7
........ ........
if Y > 0 if X+Y > 0
then ... 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 if X > 1 then ...
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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 24

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

 For Example:

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

Path Sensitizing
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 flow graph 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 can’t 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.

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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 25

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

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.

Figure: Coincidental Correctness

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,
thetypical 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 thepath.

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.

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 26

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

 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, ifthere are no bugs, exactly correspond to the path name.

Figure: Single Link Marker Instrumentation

Why Single Link Markers aren't enough: Unfortunately, a single link marker may not do
the trick because links can be chewed by open bugs.

Figure: Why Single Link Markers aren't enough.

We intended to traverse the ikm path, but because of a rampaging GOTO in the middle ofthe
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 endof the link

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 27

 20CS6PE34-STM UNIT-1

Figure: Double Link Marker Instrumentation

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

M Srimathi, Assistant Professor, CSE Dept, TKREC 28