Department of CSE

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.

(THESE THREE CASES ARE FOR REFERNCE PURPOSE ONLY, GO THROUGH IT)

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

1. 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.
2. Could the loop-control variable be negative? Could it appear to specify a negative number of
iterations? What happens to such a value?
3. One pass through the loop.
4. Two passes through the loop.
5. A typical number of iterations, unless covered by a previous test.
6. One less than the maximum number of iterations.
7. The maximum number of iterations.
8. 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

1. 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?
2. The minimum number of iterations.
3. One more than the minimum number of iterations.
4. Once, unless covered by a previous test.
5. Twice, unless covered by a previous test.
6. A typical value.
7. One less than the maximum value.
8. The maximum number of iterations.
9. 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.

KINDS OF LOOPS: There are only three kinds of loops with respect to path testing:

 Nested Loops: (loop inside the loop)

Page 1 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES

Department of CSE
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: (Joining of 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.

Page 2
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE

Figure 2.10: Example of Loop types

Page 3
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE

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.

Page 4
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE

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.

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.

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.
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 YOUR REFERENCE ONLY{ ((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.

Page 5
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
 of CSE

INDEPENDENCE OF VARIABLES AND PREDICATES:

The path predicates take on truth values based on the values of input variables, either
directly or indirectly.
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.
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.

PREDICATE COVERAGE:
Page 6
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE
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

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

o For Example:
Correct Buggy
if Y = 2 then if Y = 2 then ........
........ if X+Y > 3 if X > 1
then ... then ...
o 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.

Page 7
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE
Self Blindness:
o Self blindness occurs when the buggy predicate is a multiple of the correct predicate and as a result is
indistinguishable along that path. o For Example:
Correct Buggy
X=A X=A
........ ........
if X-1 > 0 if X+A-2 > 0
then ... then ...
1. 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:

o Review: achievable and unachievable paths:

1. We want to select and test enough paths to achieve a satisfactory notion of test completeness such as
C1+C2.
2. Extract the programs control flow graph and select a set of tentative covering paths.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. Multiply out the expression to achieve a sum of productsform:
ADFGHIJKL+AEFGHIJKL+BCDFGHIJKL+BCEFGHIJKL
6. 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.
7. Solve any one of the inequality sets for the chosen path and you have found a set of input values for the
path.
8. If you can find a solution, then the path is achievable.
9. If you can’t find a solution to any of the sets of inequalities, the path is un achievable.
10. The act of finding a set of solutions to the path predicate expression is called PATH
SENSITIZATION.

o HEURISTIC PROCEDURES FOR SENSITIZING PATHS:

1. 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.
2. Identify all variables that affect the decision.
3. Classify the predicates as dependent or independent.
4. Start the path selection with un correlated, independent predicates.
5. If coverage has not been achieved using independent uncorrelated predicates, extend the path set using
correlated predicates.
6. If coverage has not been achieved extend the cases to those that involve dependent predicates.

Page 8
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE
7. Last, use correlated, dependent predicates.

PATH INSTRUMENTATION:

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

Figure 2.11: 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:

1. Interpretive Trace Program: o 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.
o If we run the tested routine under a trace, then we have all the information we need to confirm it was
achieved by the intended path.
o 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

2. Traversal Marker or Link Marker:

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

Page 9
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE

Figure 2.12: Single Link Marker Instrumentation

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

Figure 2.13: Why Single Link Markers aren't enough.

Page 10
SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE

P
age 11 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES
Department of CSE

P
age 12 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES