SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

(A1217156) SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

UNIT III

UNIT-III: Dataflow testing:-Basics of dataflow testing, strategies in dataflow

testing, application of dataflow testing.

Dataflow testing:

 Basics of dataflow testing

 Strategies in dataflow testing
 Application of dataflow testing

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 1

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

Basics of Data flow testing:

Data flow testing:

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

Data flow machines:

There are two types of data flow machines with different architectures.

1. Von Neumann machines

2. Multi-instruction, multi-data machines (MIMD) machines

1. Von Neumann machines:

Most computers today are von-Neumann machines.

This architecture features interchangeable storage of instructions and data

in the same memory units.

The Von Neumann machine Architecture executes one instruction at a time

in the following, micro instruction sequence:

1. Fetch instruction from memory

2. Interpret instruction
3. Fetch operands
4. Process or Execute
5. Store result
6. Increment program counter

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 2

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

7. GOTO 1
2. Multi-instruction, multi-data machines (MIMD) machines
These machines can fetch several instructions and objects in parallel.

They can also do arithmetic and logical operations simultaneously on

different data objects.

The decision of how to sequence them depends on the compiler.

Bug assumption:

 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.
 Also, if there is a control-flow problem, we expect it to have symptoms
that can be detected by data-flow analysis.
 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:

 The data flow graph is a graph consisting of nodes and directed links.
 We will use a control graph to show what happens to data objects of
interest at that moment.
 Our objective is to expose deviations between the data flows we have and
the data flows we want.

Data Object State and Usage:

 Data Objects can be created, killed and used.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 3

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

 They can be used in two distinct ways: (1) In a Calculation (2) As a part of
a Control Flow Predicate.
 The following symbols denote these possibilities:
1. Defined: d - defined, created, initialized etc
2. Killed or undefined: k - killed, undefined, released etc
3. Usage: u - used for something (c - used in Calculations, p - used
in a predicate)

1. Defined (d):

 An object is defined explicitly when it appears in a data declaration.

 Or implicitly when it appears on the left hand side of the assignment.
 It is also to be used to mean that a file has been opened.
 A dynamically allocated object has been allocated.
 Something is pushed on to the stack.
 A record written.

2. Killed or Undefined (k):

 An object is killed on undefined when it is released or otherwise made

unavailable.
 When its contents are no longer known with certitude (with absolute
certainty / perfectness).
 Release of dynamically allocated objects back to the availability pool.
 Return of records.
 The old top of the stack after it is popped.
 An assignment statement can kill and redefine immediately. For
example, if A had been previously defined and we do a new assignment
such as A: = 17, we have killed A's previous value and redefined A.

3. Usage (u):

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 4

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

 A variable is used for computation (c) when it appears on the right hand
side of an assignment statement.
 A file record is read or written.
 It is used in a Predicate (p) when it appears directly in a predicate.

Data flow Anomalies:

 An anomaly is denoted by a two-character sequence of actions.

 For example, ku means that the object is killed and then used, whereas
dd means that the object is defined twice without an intervening usage.
 What is an anomaly is depend on the application.
 There are nine possible two-letter combinations for d, k and u. some are
bugs, some are suspicious, and some are okay.
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 does not 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.
Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 5
 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

 The 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 state graph:

 Data flow anomaly model prescribes that an object can be in one of four
distinct states:
1. K :- undefined, previously killed, does not 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.
Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 6
 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

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.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 7

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

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

The point of showing you this alternative anomaly state graph is to

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

Static vs Dynamic Anomaly Detection:

 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.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 8

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

 If a problem, such as a data flow anomaly, can be detected by static

analysis methods, then it does not 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 9

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

the proper state on a given path or, for that matter, whether they exist
at all.
4. Dynamic Subroutine and Function Names in a Call: subroutine or
function name is a dynamic variable in a call. What is passed, or a
combination of subroutine names and data objects, is constructed on
a specific path. There's no way, without executing the path, to
determine whether the call is correct or not.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Concurrency, Interrupts, System Issues: As soon as we get away
from the simple single-task uniprocessor environment and start
thinking in terms of systems, most anomaly issues become vastly
more complicated. How often do we define or create data objects at an
interrupt level so that they can be processed by a lower-priority
routine? Interrupts can make the "correct" anomalous and the
"anomalous" correct. True concurrency (as in an MIMD machine) and
pseudoconcurrency (as in multiprocessing) systems can do the same
to us. Much of integration and system testing is aimed at detecting
data-flow anomalies that cannot be detected in the context of a single
routine.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 10

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

 Although static analysis methods have limits, they are worth using and a
continuing trend in language processor design has been better static
analysis methods, especially for data flow anomaly detection. That's good
because it means there's less for us to do as testers and we have far too
much to do as it is.

Data flow model:

 The data flow model is based on the program's control flow graph - Don't
confuse that with the program's data flowgraph.
 Here we annotate each link with symbols (for example, d, k, u, c, p) or
sequences of symbols (for example, dd, du, ddd) that denote the sequence
of data operations on that link with respect to the variable of interest.
Such annotations are called link weights.
 The control flow graph structure is same for every variable: it is the
weights that change.
 Components of the model:
1. To every statement there is a node, whose name is unique. Every
node has at least one outlink and at least one inlink except for
exit nodes and entry nodes.
2. Exit nodes are dummy nodes placed at the outgoing arrowheads
of exit statements (e.g., END, RETURN), to complete the graph.
Similarly, entry nodes are dummy nodes placed at entry
statements (e.g., BEGIN) for the same reason.
3. The outlink of simple statements (statements with only one
outlink) are weighted by the proper sequence of data-flow actions
for that statement. Note that the sequence can consist of more
than one letter. For example, the assignment statement A:= A +
B in most languages is weighted by cd or possibly ckd for
variable A. Languages that permit multiple simultaneous
assignments and/or compound statements can have anomalies
Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 11
 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

within the statement. The sequence must correspond to the

order in which the object code will be executed for that variable.
4. Predicate nodes (e.g., IF-THEN-ELSE, DO WHILE, CASE) are
weighted with the p - use(s) on every outlink, appropriate to that
outlink.
5. Every sequence of simple statements (e.g., a sequence of nodes
with one inlink and one outlink) can be replaced by a pair of
nodes that has, as weights on the link between them, the
concatenation of link weights.
6. If there are several data-flow actions on a given link for a given
variable, then the weight of the link is denoted by the sequence
of actions on that link for that variable.
7. Conversely, a link with several data-flow actions on it can be
replaced by a succession of equivalent links, each of which has
at most one data-flow action for any variable.
 Let us consider the example: (Figure 1)

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 12

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

Unannotated flowgraph for the above example program is (Figure 2)

Control flowgraph annotated for X and Y data flows is (Figure 3)

Control flowgraph annotated for Z data flow is (Figure 4)

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 13

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

Control flowgraph annotated for V data flow is (Figure 5)

DATA FLOW TESTING STRATEGIES:

 Data Flow Testing Strategies are structural strategies.

 In contrast to the path-testing strategies, data-flow strategies take into
account what happens to data objects on the links in addition to the raw
connectivity of the graph.
 In other words, data flow strategies require data-flow link weights
(d,k,u,c,p).
 Data Flow Testing Strategies are based on selecting test path segments (also
called sub paths) that satisfy some characteristic of data flows for all data
objects.
 For example, all subpaths that contain a d (or u, k, du, dk).
 A strategy X is stronger than another strategy Y if all test cases produced
under Y are included in those produced under X - conversely for weaker.

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 are definition clear because variables X and Y are defined only on the
first link (1,3) and not thereafter. In the above Figure 4, 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)

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 14

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

is not definition-clear because the variable is defined on (1,3) and again on

(4,5). For practice, try finding all the definition-clear subpaths for this routine
(i.e., for all variables).

Loop-Free Path Segment is a path segment for which every node in it is

visited atmost once. For Example, path (4,5,6,7,8,10) in the above Figure 4 is
loop free, but path (10,11,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12) is not because nodes 10 and 11
are each visited twice.

Simple path segment is a path segment in which at most one node is visited
twice. For example, in the above Figure 4, (7,4,5,6,7) is a simple path segment.
A simple path segment is either loop-free or if there is a loop, only one node is
involved.

A du path from node i to k is a path segment such that if the last link has a
computational use of X, then the path is simple and definition-clear; if the
penultimate (last but one) node is j - that is, the path is (i,p,q,...,r,s,t,j,k) and
link (j,k) has a predicate use - then the path from i to j is both loop-free and
definition-clear.

Various types of data flow testing strategies in decreasing order of their

effectiveness are:

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

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

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 15

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

For variable X and Y:In Figure 3, 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 4) 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 5) is defined only once on link (1,3).

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

2. 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

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 16

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

path segment from every definition to every use that can be reached by that
definition.

For variable V: In Figure 5, 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 5.

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

For variable V: In Figure 5 , 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.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 17

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

4. 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 4, 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 18

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

It is intuitively obvious that ACU should be weaker than ACU+P and that APU
should be weaker than APU+C.

Ordering the Strategies:

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

The right-hand side of this graph, along the path from "all paths" to "all
statements" is the more interesting hierarchy for practical applications.

Note that although ACU+P is stronger than ACU, both are incomparable to
the predicate-biased strategies. Note also that "all definitions" is not
comparable to ACU or APU.

Slicing and dicing:

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 19

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

 A (static) program slice is a part of a program (e.g., a selected set of

statements) defined with respect to a given variable X (where X is a simple
variable or a data vector) and a statement i: it is the set of all statements
that could (potentially, under static analysis) affect the value of X at
statement i - where the influence of a faulty statement could result from an
improper computational use or predicate use of some other variables at
prior statements.
 If X is incorrect at statement i, it follows that the bug must be in the
program slice for X with respect to i
 A program dice is a part of a slice in which all statements which are known
to be correct have been removed.
 In other words, a dice is obtained from a slice by incorporating information
obtained through testing or experiment (e.g., debugging).
 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.
 Debugging can be modelled 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.
 Dynamic slicing is a refinement of static slicing in which only statements
on achievable paths to the statement in question are included.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 20

 SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

Applications of Data Flow Testing:

1. Data Flow Testing is used to detect the different abnormalities that may rise
due to data flow anomalies.
2. Data Flow Testing shows the relationship between the data objects that
represents the data.
3. Data Flow testing strategies helps in determining the usage of variables that
are included in the test suite.
4. Data Flow Testing is cost effective.
5. Data Flow Testing solves the problems that are encountered while during
the execution of the program.
6. Data flow testing is used in developing web applications with Java
Technology.

Prepared by: Dept. of CSE, RGMCET Page 21