STM Complete Note Notes For Jntuh Students
STM Complete Note Notes For Jntuh Students
SOFTWARE TESTING
METHODOLOGIES
LECTURE NOTES
UNIT-II
Transaction Flow Testing:-transaction flows, transaction flow testing techniques. Dataflow
testing:- Basics of dataflow testing, strategies in dataflow testing,application of dataflow
testing.
Domain Testing:-domains and paths, Nice & ugly domains, domain testing, domains
and interfaces testing, domain and interface testing, domains and testability.
UNIT-III
Paths,Path products and Regular expressions:- path products &pathexpression,
reduction procedure, applications, regular expressions & flow anomaly detection.
Logic Based Testing:-overview,decision tables,path expressions,kv charts,
specifications.
UNIT-IV:
State, State Graphs and Transition testing:- state graphs, good & bad state graphs,
state testing, Testability tips.
UNIT-IV:
Graph Matrices and Application:-Motivational overview, matrix of graph,
relations, power of a matrix, node reduction algorithm, building tools
What is testing?
c
a
u
g
h
t
a
s
t
h
e
y
o
c
c
u
r
,
i
n
s
p
e
o Testing and Test Design are parts of quality assurance should also focus on bug
prevention. A prevented bug is better than a detected and corrected bug.
Phases in a tester's mental life:
Phases in a tester's mental life can be categorized into the following 5 phases:
1. Phase 0: (Until 1956: Debugging Oriented) There is no diference between testing and
debugging. Phase 0 thinking was the norm in early days of software development till
testing emerged as a discipline.
2. 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. I.e. the more you test, the
more likely you will find a bug.
3. Phase 2: (1979-1982: Destruction Oriented) the purpose of testing is to show that
software doesn’t 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.
4. 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.)
5. Phase 4: (1988-2000: Prevention Oriented) Testability is the factor considered here. One
reason is to reduce the labor 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
actual code.
1. Inspection Methods: Methods like walkthroughs, desk checking, formal inspections and
code reading appear to be as efective as testing but the bugs caught don’t completely
overlap.
2. Design Style: While designing the software itself, adopting stylistic objectives such as
testability, openness and clarity can do much to prevent bugs.
3. 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.
4. Languages: The source language can help reduce certain kinds of bugs. Programmers
find new bugs while using new languages.
5. 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 Debugging
Testing starts with known conditions, Debugging starts from possibly unknown
uses predefined procedures and has initial conditions and the end cannot be
predictable outcomes. predicted except statistically.
Testing can and should be planned, Procedure and duration of debugging cannot
designed and scheduled. be so constrained.
Testing is a demonstration of error or
Debugging is a deductive process.
apparent correctness.
Debugging is the programmer's vindication
Testing proves a programmer's failure.
(Justification).
Testing, as executes, should strive to be
Debugging demands intuitive leaps,
predictable, dull, constrained, rigid and
experimentation and freedom.
inhuman.
Much testing can be done without Debugging is impossible without detailed
design knowledge. design knowledge.
Testing can often be done by an
Debugging must be done by an insider.
outsider.
Much of test execution and design can
Automated debugging is still a dream.
be automated.
o 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 diferent persons. During unit testing, the tester and the programmer
merge into one person.
o Tests designed and executed by the software designers are by nature biased
towards structural consideration and therefore sufer the limitations of
structural testing.
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 organized into modular components. Small, independent test cases can be
designed to test independent modules.
Programming in large means constructing programs that consists of many components written by many
diferent 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.
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 diferent 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?
2. Bug Locality Hypothesis: The belief that a bug discovered with in a component afects
only that component's behavior.
3. Control Bug Dominance: The belief those 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 Salvatore 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 is at
code design.
Test
s:
o 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
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 components were individually
satisfactory (after passing component testing), checks the combination of
components are incorrect or inconsistent.
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 diferent
models we have at hand and their ability to express a program's behavior.
CONSEQUENCES OF BUGS:
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.
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.
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.
2. 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.
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.
3. 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
Although these bugs are frequent (12%), they tend to be caught in good unit testing.
4. Initialization Bugs:
Initialization bugs are common. Initialization bugs can be improper and superfluous.
Superfluous bugs are generally less harmful but can afect 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 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.
Code migrates data: Software is evolving towards programs in which more and more of
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 diferent types, with diferent 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.
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.
1. 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.
2.Internal Interfaces:
Internal interfaces are in principle not diferent from external interfaces but they are
more controlled.
A best example for internal interfaces is 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.
3. 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 twofold: (1) Good
Programming and Testing (2) Centralization of hardware interface software in programs
written by hardware interface specialists.
5. 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 toa stress test are
efective methods for these bugs.
6. 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.
8. 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.
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.
9. 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.
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 efectiveness of path testing rapidly deteriorates as the size of the
software aggregate under test increases.
o Flow Graph Elements: A flow graph contains four diferent 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
diferences 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.
Notational Evolution:
The control flow graph is simplified representation of the program's structure.The notation changes made in
creation of control flow graphs:
o The process boxes weren't really needed. There is an implied process on every line
joining junctions and decisions.
o We don't need to know the specifics of the decisions, just the fact that there is a branch.
o The specific target label names aren't important-just the fact that they exist. So we can
replace them by simple numbers.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Although graphical representations of flow graphs are revealing, the details of the control flow inside a program
in the flow graph. Only the information pertinent to the control flow is shown.
Linked List representation of Flow Graph:
Flowcharts can be
1. Handwritten by the programmer.
2. Automatically produced by a flowcharting program based on a mechanical analysis
of the source code.
3. Semi automatically produced by a flow charting program based in part on
structural analysis of the source code and in part on directions given by the
programmer.
There are relatively few control flow graph generators.
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 consist 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.
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 diferent iteration values possible for the loop.
Defining complete testing:
1. Exercise every path from entry to exit.
2. Exercise every statement or instruction at least once.
3. Exercise every branch and case statement, in each direction at least once.
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.
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.
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
7. 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)
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.
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 aford 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.
Put in limits or checks that prevent the combined extreme cases. Then you have to test
the software that implements such safety measures.
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
.........
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.
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 >= D: X4 - X1 >=
14X2 14X2
Boolean algebra notation to denote the boolean expression:
ABCD+EBCD=(A+E)BCD
PREDICATE COVERAGE:
Compound Predicate: Predicates of the form A OR B, A AND B and more complicated
Boolean expressions are called as compound predicates.
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:
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
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:
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 afect 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 II
TRANSACTION FLOW TESTING AND DATA FLOW TESTING
Transaction Flow Testing:-transaction flows, transaction flow testing
techniques. Dataflow testing:- Basics of dataflow testing, strategies in
dataflow testing, application of dataflow testing.
INTRODUCTION
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 diferent 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 diferent possible interpretations of the decision symbol,
or nodes with two or more out links. It can be a Decision, Biosis or a Mitosis.
1. Decision: Here the transaction will take one alternative or the other
alternative but not both. (See Figure 3.2 (a))
2. 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))
3. Mitosis: Here the parent transaction is destroyed and two new
transactions are created.(See Figure 3.2 (c))
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.
initialized prior to use or that all defined objects have been used for something.
o Motivation: It is our belief that, just as one would not feel confident about a
program without executing every statement in it as part of some test, one should
not feel confident about a program without having seen the efect of using the value produced by each and every
computation.
BUG ASSUMPTION:
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 flow graphs as
such. Rather, we'll use an ordinary control flow graph 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 a 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.
1 dd :- probably harmless but suspicious. Why define the object twice without an intervening
usage?
2 dk :- probably a bug. Why define the object without using it?
3 du :- the normal case. The object is defined and then used.
4 kd :- normal situation. An object is killed and then redefined.
5 kk :- harmless but probably buggy. Did you want to be sure it was really killed?
6 ku :- a bug. the object doesnot exist.
7 ud :- usually not a bug because the language permits reassignment at almost any time.
8 uk :- normal situation.
9 uu :- normal situation.
In addition to the two letter situations, there are six single letter situations.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.
A trailing dash to mean that nothing happens after the point of interest to the exit.
They possible anomalies are:
1 -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.
2 -d :- okay. This is just the first definition along this path.
3 -u :- possibly anomalous. Not anomalous if the variable is global and has
been previously defined.
4 k- :- not anomalous. The last thing done on this path was to kill the variable.
5 d- :- possibly anomalous. The variable was defined and not used on this path. But
this could be a global definition.
6 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 model prescribes that an object can be in one of four distinct states:
1. K :- undefined, previously killed, doesnot exist
2. D :- defined but not yet used for anything
3. U :- has been used for computation or in predicate
4. A :- anomalous
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.
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.
Forgiving Data - Flow Anomaly Flow Graph: Forgiving model is an alternate model where
redemption (recover) from the anomalous state is possible
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 analysis is analysis done on source code without actually executing it. For example: source code syntax error
detection is the static analysis result.
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.
If a problem, such as a data flow anomaly, can be detected by static analysis methods, then it doesn’t belongs in
testing - it belongs in the language processor.
There is actually a lot more static analysis for data flow analysis for data flow anomalies going on in current
language processors.
For example, language processors which force variable declarations can detect (-u) and (ku) anomalies.But still
there are many things for which current notions of static analysis are INADEQUATE.
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.
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 pseudo concurrency (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.
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.
The data flow model is based on the program's control flow graph - Don't confuse that with the program's data flow
graph.
Here we annotate each link with symbols (for example, d, k, u, c, and 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.
The control flow graph structure is same for every variable: it is the weights that change.
Figure 3.8: Unannotated flow graph for example program in Figure 3.7
Figure 3.9: Control flow graph annotated for X and Y data flows.
INTRODUCTION:
TERMINOLOGY:
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 flow graph. They
difer 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 efectiveness 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 some test.
For variable X and Y: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).
For variable Z: 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).
For variable V: 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 diferent 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.
For variable V: 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.
For variable Z: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 inthis
example - it only takes two tests.
For variable V: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.
For variable Z: 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.
The above examples imply that APU+C is stronger than branch coverage but ACU+P may be weaker than, or
incomparable to, branch coverage.
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.
For variable Z: Path (1,3,4,5,6,7,8, . . .) satisfies this criterion for variable Z, whereas any entry/exit path
satisfies it for variable V.
From the definition of this strategy we would expect it to be weaker than both ACU+P and APU+C.
1. 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.
It is intuitively obvious that ACU should be weaker than ACU+P and that APU should be weaker than APU+C.
Figure 3.12compares 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.
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.
UNIT III
DOMAIN TESTING
Domain Testing:-domains and paths, Nice & ugly domains, domain testing, domains and
interfaces testing, domain and interface testing, domains and testability.
INTRODUCTION:
o Domain: In mathematics, domain is a set of possible values of an
independent 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.
All inputs to a program can be considered as if they are numbers. For example, a character string can be
treated as a number by concatenating bits and looking at them as if they were a binary integer. This is the
view in domain testing, which is why this strategy has a mathematical flavor.
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 passes 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.
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
The importance of domain closure is that incorrect closure bugs are frequent domain bugs. For example, x >= 0 when x >
0 was intended
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 itself or multiplied by zero. So the floating point zero check to be
done against an epsilon value.
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 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, say. b, the bug will be in the value of a or b but it will not change the predicate to
ax
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 diferent predicate expression (after
interpretation), which means a possible domain boundary change.
NICE DOMAINS:
o Where do 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,
And 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.
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.
In Figure 4.3 for example, the domain boundaries for u and v difer only by a
constant.
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,
o we must now test the intersections. We've gone from a linear number of cases
to a quadratic: from O(n) to O(n2).
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 diferent 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
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.
DOMAIN TESTING:
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.
1. Figure 4.13 shows possible domain bugs for a one-dimensional open domain
boundary.
2. 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.
3. In Figure 4.13c we've sufered 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.
1. Figure 4.15 shows possible domain boundary bugs for a two-dimensional domain.
2. 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.
1. 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 of point (closed of outside) catches this bug. Figure
4.15c shows a shift down that is caught by the two on points.
2. 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.
INTRODUCTION:
o Recall that we defined integration testing as testing the correctness of the
interface between two otherwise correct components.
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.
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.
UNIT IV
PATHS, PATH PRODUCTS AND REGULAR EXPRESSIONS
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 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 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,
YX=fghijabcde
aX=aabcde
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:
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:
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+..............
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 won’t be any paths.
REDUCTION PROCEDURE:
o The cross - term step is the fundamental step of the reduction algorithm.
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.
Removing node 4 leads to a loop term. The graph has now been replaced with the following
equivalent simpler graph:
o You can practice by applying the algorithm on the following flowgraphs and
generate their respective path expressions:
Each link represents a single link and consequently is given a weight of "1" to start. Let’s
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.
13 = 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4
2. E: Multiply the link weights inside the loop: 1 X 4 = 4
3. F: Evaluate the loop by multiplying the link wieghts: 2 X 4 = 8.
4. G: Simpifying the loop further results in the total maximum number
of paths in the flowgraph:
2 X 84 X 2 = 32,768.
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)31 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
This is the same result we got graphically.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 diferent paths is 8192 rather than 32,768.
STRUCTURED FLOWGRAPH:
Structured code can be defined in several diferent ways that do not involve ad-hoc rules such as not using
GOTOs.
A structured flowgraph is one that can be reduced to a single link by successive application of the
transformations of Figure 5.7.
The node-by-node reduction procedure can also be used as a test for structured code.Flow graphs that DO NOT
contain one or more of the graphs shown below (Figure 5.8) as subgraphs are structured.
1. Jumping into loops
2. Jumping out of loops
3. Branching into decisions
4. Branching out of decisions
The values of the weights are the number of members in a set of paths.
EXAMPLE:
Applying the arithmetic to the earlier example gives us the identical
steps unitl step 3 (C) as below:
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.
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. We use the same algorithm as
before: node-by-node removal of uninteresting nodes.
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, P A 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 P B, 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 P L 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:
which is what we've postulated for any decision. In other words, division by 1 - P L
renormalizes the outlink probabilities so that their sum equals unity after the loop is
removed.
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:
These 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 bra 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.
EXAMPLE:
1. Start with the original flow graph annotated with probabilities and processing time.
2.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 flow graph.
4. Use the cross-term step to eliminate a node and to create the inner self - loop.
5.Finally, you can get the mean processing time, by using the arithmetic rules as
follows:
PUSH/POP, GET/RETURN:
This model can be used to answer several diferent questions that can turn up in debugging. It can also help
decide which test cases to design.
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?
Here are some other examples of complementary operations to which this model applies: GET/RETURN a
resource block.
OPEN/CLOSE a file.
START/STOP a device or process.
G(G + R)G(GR)*GGR*R
= G(G + R)G3R*R
= (G + R)G3R*
= (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.
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 ss or an rr 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, cr and cw are anomalous. Similarly, if the file is read before
it's been written, just after opening, we may have a bug. Therefore, or is
also anomalous. Furthermore, oo and cc, 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: df, dr, dw,
fd, and fr. 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
dd, dk, kk, and ku 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) AB nC, then T will appear in
AB2C. (HUANG's Theorem)
As an example, let
o A = pp
B = srr
C = rp
T = ss
A = p + pp + ps
B = psr + ps(r + ps)
C = rp
T = P4
Is it obvious that there is a p4 sequence in ABnC? The theorem states that we have only to look at
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.
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 IV(Part-II)
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 of 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.
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.
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.
1. The specification is given as a decision table or can be easily converted into one.
2. The order in which the predicates are evaluated does not afect interpretation of
the rules or the resulting action - i.e., an arbitrary permutation of the predicate
order will not, or should not, afect which action takes place.
3. The order in which the rules are evaluated does not afect the resulting action -
i.e., an arbitrary permutation of rules will not, or should not, afect which action
takes place.
4. Once a rule is satisfied and an action selected, no other rule need be examined.
5. If several actions can result from satisfying a rule, the order in which the actions
are executed doesn't matter.
CONDITION A
CONDITION B
CONDITION C YES YES YES NO I NO I NO I
CONDITION D YES I NO I YES I YES I NO NO
YES I NO YES NO
PATH EXPRESSIONS:
GENERAL:
o Logic-based testing is structural testing when it's applied to structure (e.g.,
control flow graph of an implementation); it's functional testing when it's applied
to a specification.
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 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:
In all of the above, a letter can represent a single sentence or an entire boolean algebra expression.
Individual letters in a boolean algebra expression are called Literals (e.g. A,B) The product of
several literals is called a product term (e.g., ABC, DE).
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.
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 reduce by rule 20 to AB + DEF; that is, AB and DEF are prime implicants. The path
expressions of Figure 6.5 can now be simplified by applying the rules.
The following are the laws of boolean algebra:
Similarly,
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 efective.
SINGLE VARIABLE:
o Figure 6.6 shows all the boolean functions of a single variable and their
equivalent representation as a KV chart.
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:
UNIT-V
STATES, STATE GRAPHS, AND TRANSITION TESTING
State, State Graphs and Transition testing:- state graphs, good & bad state graphs, state
testing, Testability tips.
Graph Matrices and Application:-Motivational overview, matrix of graph, relations, power of a
matrix, node reduction algorithm, building tools. ( Student should be given an exposure to a tool
like JMeter or Win-runner).
Introduction
The finite state machine is as fundamental to software engineering as boolean algebra
to logic.
State testing strategies are based on the use of finite state machine models for software
structure, software behavior, or specifications of software behavior.
Finite state machines can also be implemented as table-driven software, in which case
they are a powerful design option.
State Graphs
A state is defined as: “A combination of circumstances or attributes belonging for the
time being to a person or thing.”
For example, a moving automobile whose engine is running can have the following
states with respect to its transmission.
Reverse gear
Neutral gear
First gear
Second gear
Third gear
Fourth gear
State graph - Example
For example, a program that detects the character sequence “ZCZC” can be in the
following states.
Neither ZCZC nor any part of it has been detected.
Z has been detected.
ZC has been detected.
ZCZ has been detected.
ZCZC has been detected.
States are represented by Nodes. State are numbered or may identified by words or whatever else is convenient.
The input that causes the transition are marked on the link; that is, the inputs are link
weights.
There is one out link from every state for every input.
If several inputs in a state cause a transition to the same subsequent state, instead of
drawing a bunch of parallel links we can abbreviate the notation by listing the several
inputs as in: “input1, input2, input3………”.
Important graphs
Equivalent States
Two states are Equivalent if every sequence of inputs starting from one state produces
exactly the same sequence of outputs when started from the other state. This notion
can also be extended to set of states.
TransitionBugs-
unspecified and contradictory Transitions
Every input-state combination must have a specified transition.
If the transition is impossible, then there must be a mechanism that prevents the input
from occurring in that state.
Exactly one transition must be specified for every combination of input and state.
A program can’t have contradictions or ambiguities.
Ambiguities are impossible because the program will do something for every input. Even
the state does not change, by definition this is a transition to the same state.
Unreachable States
An unreachable state is like unreachable code.
A state that no input sequence can reach.
An unreachable state is not impossible, just as unreachable code is not impossible
There may be transitions from unreachable state to other states; there usually because
the state became unreachable as a result of incorrect transition.
There are two possibilities for unreachable states:
o There is a bug; that is some transitions are missing.
o The transitions are there, but you don’t know about it.
Dead States
A dead state is a state that once entered cannot be left.
This is not necessarily a bug but it is suspicious.
The states, transitions, and the inputs could be correct, there could be no dead or
unreachable states, but the output for the transition could be incorrect.
Output actions must be verified independently of states and
transitions. State Testing
Impact of Bugs
If a routine is specified as a state graph that has been verified as correct in all details.
Program code or table or a combination of both must still be implemented.
A bug can manifest itself as one of the following symptoms:
Wrong number of states.
Device drivers such as for tapes and discs that have complicated retry and recovery
procedures if the action depends on the state.
Whenever a feature is directly and explicitly implemented as one or more state transition tables.
Tool Building
If you build test tools or want to know how they work, sooner or later you will be implementing
or investigating analysis routines based on these methods.
It is hard to build algorithms over visual graphs so the properties or graph matrices are
fundamental to tool building.
A simple weight
A simplest weight we can use is to note that there is or isn’t a connection. Let “1” mean that
there is a connection and “0” mean that there isn’t.
The arithmetic rules are:
1+1=1 1*1=1
1+0=1 1*0=0
0+0=0 0*0=0
A matrix defined like this is called connection matrix.
Connection matrix
The connection matrix is obtained by replacing each entry with 1 if there is a link and 0 if there
isn’t.
As usual we don’t write down 0 entries to reduce the clutter.
Connection Matrix-continued
Each row of a matrix denotes the out links of the node corresponding to that row.
Each column denotes the in links corresponding to that node.
A branch is a node with more than one nonzero entry in its row.
A junction is node with more than one nonzero entry in its column.
A self loop is an entry along the diagonal.
Cyclomatic Complexity
The cyclomatic complexity obtained by subtracting 1 from the total number of entries in each
row and ignoring rows with no entries, we obtain the equivalent number of decisions for each
row. Adding these values and then adding 1 to the sum yields the graph’s cyclomaticcomplexity.
Relations
A relation is a property that exists between two objects of interest.
For example,
“Node a is connected to node b” or aRb where “R” means “is connected to”.
“a>=b” or aRb where “R” means greater than or equal”.
A graph consists of set of abstract objects called nodes and a relation R between the nodes.
If aRb, which is to say that a has the relation R to b, it is denoted by a link from a to b.
For some relations we can associate properties called as link weights.
Transitive Relations
A relation is transitive if aRb and bRc implies aRc.
Most relations used in testing are transitive.
Examples of transitive relations include: is connected to, is greater than or equal to, is less than
or equal to, is a relative of, is faster than, is slower than, takes more time than, is a subset of,
includes, shadows, is the boss of.
Examples of intransitive relations include: is acquainted with, is a friend of, is a neighbor of, is
lied to, has a du chain between.
Reflexive Relations
A relation R is reflexive if, for every a, aRa.
A reflexive relation is equivalent to a self loop at every node.
Examples of reflexive relations include: equals, is acquainted with, is a relative of.
Examples of irreflexive relations include: not equals, is a friend of, is on top of, is under.
Symmetric Relations
A relation R is symmetric if for every a and b, aRb implies bRa.
A symmetric relation mean that if there is a link from a to b then there is also a link from b to a.
A graph whose relations are not symmetric are called directed graph.
A graph over a symmetric relation is called an undirected graph.
The matrix of an undirected graph is symmetric (aij=aji) for all i,j)
Antisymmetric Relations
A relation R is antisymmetric if for every a and b, if aRb and bRa, then a=b, or they are the same
elements.
Examples of antisymmetric relations: is greater than or equal to, is a subset of, time.
Examples of nonantisymmetric relations: is connected to, can be reached from, is greater than,
is a relative of, is a friend of
quivalence Relations
An equivalence relation is a relation that satisfies the reflexive, transitive, and symmetric
properties.
Equality is the most familiar example of an equivalence relation.
If a set of objects satisfy an equivalence relation, we say that they form an equivalence class
over that relation.
The importance of equivalence classes and relations is that any member of the equivalence class
is, with respect to the relation, equivalent to any other member of that class.
The idea behind partition testing strategies such as domain testing and path testing, is that we
can partition the input space into equivalence classes.
Testing any member of the equivalence class is as efective as testing them all.
n
aij=Σ aik akj
k=1
more generally, given two matrices A and B with entries aik and bkj, respectively, their
product is a new matrix C, whose entries are cij, where:
n
Cij=Σ aik bkj
k=1
Partitioning Algorithm
Consider any graph over a transitive relation. The graph may have loops.
We would like to partition the graph by grouping nodes in such a way that every loop is
contained within one group or another.
Such a graph is partially ordered.
There are many used for an algorithm that does that:
We might want to embed the loops within a subroutine so as to have a resulting graph which
is loop free at the top level.
Many graphs with loops are easy to analyze if you know where to break theloops.
While you and I can recognize loops, it’s much harder to program a tool to do it unless you
have a solid algorithm on which to base the tool.