LECTURE NOTES

ON

SOFTWARE TESTING METHODOLOGIES

 UNIT III
PATHS, PATH PRODUCTS AND REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

PATH PRODUCTS AND PATH EXPRESSION:

MOTIVATION: 
Flow graphs are being an abstract representation of programs.
Any question about a program can be cast into an equivalent question about an
appropriate flow graph.
Most software development, testing and debugging tools use flow graphs analysis
techniques.

PATH PRODUCTS:
Normally flow graphs used to denote only control flow connectivity.
The simplest weight we can give to a link is a name.
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.
Every link of a graph can be given a name.
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.
The name of the path or path segment that corresponds to those links is expressed
naturally by concatenating those link names.
For example, if you traverse links a,b,c and d along some path, the name for that
path segment is abcd. This pa
th name is also called a path product. Figure 5.1 shows some examples:

Figure 5.1: Examples of paths.

 PATH EXPRESSION:
Consider a pair of nodes in a graph and the set of paths between those node.
Denote that set of paths by Upper case letter such as X,Y. From Figure 5.1c, the
members of the path set can be listed as follows:
ac, abc, abbc, abbbc, abbbbc.............
Alternatively, the same set of paths can be denoted by :
ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+abbbbc+...........
The + sign is understood to mean "or" between the two nodes of interest, paths
ac, or abc, or abbc, and so on can be taken.
Any expression that consists of path names and "OR"s and which denotes a set
of paths between two nodes is called a "Path Expression”.

 PATH PRODUCTS:
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.
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
Similarly,
YX=fghijabcde
aX=aabcde

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,
X = abc + def + ghi
oY = 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:
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
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.
 The zero 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.
a0 = 1
X0=1

PATH SUMS:
The "+" sign was used to denote the fact that path names were part of the same set
of paths.
The "PATH SUM" denotes paths in parallel between nodes.
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.
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.
If X and Y are sets of paths that lie between the same pair of nodes, then X+Y
denote the UNION of those set of paths. For example, in Figure 5.2:

Figure 5.2: Examples of path sums.

The first set of parallel paths is denoted by X + Y + d and the second set by U + V
+ W + h + i + j. The set of all paths in this flow graph is f(X + Y + d)g(U + V +
W + h + i + j)k
The path is a set union operation; it is clearly Commutative and Associative.
RULE 2: X+Y=Y+X
RULE 3: (X+Y)+Z=X+(Y+Z)=X+Y+Z

 DISTRIBUTIVE LAWS:
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
Applying these rules to the below Figure 5.1a yields
e(a+b)(c+d)f=e(ac+ad+bc+bd)f = eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf

 ABSORPTION RULE: 
If X and Y denote the same set of paths, then the union of these sets is unchanged;
consequently,

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.
For example,
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+..............

Figure 5.3: Examples of path loops.

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

Figure 5.4: Another example of path loops.

The path expression for the above figure is denoted by the
notation: ab*c=ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+................
Evidently,
aa*=a*a=a+ and XX*=X*X=X+
It is more convenient to denote the fact that a loop cannot be taken more than a
certain, say n, number of times.
A bar is used under the exponent to denote the fact as
follows: Xn = X0+X1+X2+X3+X4+X5+..................+Xn

RULES 6 - 16:
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+
RULE11:1+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:

REDUCTION PROCEDURE ALGORITHM:

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

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

Select any node for removal other than the initial or final node. Replace it
with a set of equivalent links whose path expressions correspond to all the
ways you can form a product of the set of in links with the set of out links
of that node.
Combine any remaining serial links by multiplying their path expressions.
Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
Remove all self-loops as in step 3.
Does the graph consist of a single link between the entry node and the exit
node? If yes, then the path expression for that link is a path expression for
the original flow graph; otherwise, return to step 4.
A flow graph can have many equivalent path expressions between a given pair of
nodes; that is, there are many different ways to generate the set of all paths
between two nodes without affecting the content of that set.
The appearance of the path expression depends, in general, on the order in which
nodes are removed.

CROSS-TERM STEP (STEP 4):

The cross - term step is the fundamental step of the reduction algorithm.
It removes a node, thereby reducing the number of nodes by one.
Successive applications of this step eventually get you down to one entry and one
exit node. The following diagram shows the situation at an arbitrary node that has
been selected for removal:

From the above diagram, one can infer:

o (a + b)(c + d + e) = ac + ad + + ae + bc + bd + be
 LOOP REMOVAL OPERATIONS: 
There are two ways of looking at the loop-removal operation:

In the first way, we remove the self-loop and then multiply all outgoing links by
Z*.
In the second way, we split the node into two equivalent nodes, call them A and
A' and put in a link between them whose path expression is Z*. Then we remove
node A' using steps 4 and 5 to yield outgoing links whose path expressions are
Z*X and Z*Y.

 A REDUCTION PROCEDURE - EXAMPLE:

Let us see by applying this algorithm to the following graph where we remove
several nodes in order; that is

Figure 5.5: Example Flow graph for demonstrating reduction procedure.

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

o Remove node 9 by applying step4 and 5 to yield

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

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

PARALLEL TERM (STEP 6):

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

LOOP TERM (STEP 7):

Removing node 4 leads to a loop term. The graph has now been replaced with the
following equivalent simpler graph:

o Continue the process by applying the loop-removal step as follows:

Removing node 5 produces:

Remove the loop at node 6 to yield:

Remove node 3 to yield

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

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

Figure 5.6: Some graphs and their path expressions.

APPLICATIONS:
The purpose of the node removal algorithm is to present one much generalized
concept- the path expression and way of getting it.
Every application follows this common pattern:
Convert the program or graph into a path expression.
Identify a property of interest and derive an appropriate set of "arithmetic" rules
that characterizes the property.
Replace the link names by the link weights for the property of interest. The path expression
has now been converted to an expression in some algebra, such as
Ordinary algebra, regular expressions, or Boolean algebra. This algebraic
expression summarizes the property of interest over the set of all paths.
Simplify or evaluate the resulting "algebraic" expression to answer the question
you asked.

HOW MANY PATHS IN A FLOW GRAPH?

The question is not simple. Here are some ways you could ask it:
What is the maximum number of different paths possible?
What is the fewest number of paths possible?
How many different paths are there really?
What is the average number of paths?
Determining the actual number of different paths is an inherently difficult
problem because there could be unachievable paths resulting from correlated and
dependent predicates.
If we know both of these numbers (maximum and minimum number of possible
paths) we have a good idea of how complete our testing is.
Asking for "the average number of paths" is meaningless.

 MAXIMUM PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:

Label each link with a link weight that corresponds to the number of paths that
link represents.
Also mark each loop with the maximum number of times that loop can be taken.
If the answer is infinite, you might as well stop the analysis because it is clear that
the maximum number of paths will be infinite.
There are three cases of interest: parallel links, serial links, and loops.

This arithmetic is an ordinary algebra. The weight is the number of paths in

each set.
 EXAMPLE:
The following is a reasonably well-structured program.

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

"1" to start. 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.

For the Inner Loop:

D: Calculate the total weight of inner loop, which can execute a min. of 0
times and max. of 3 times. So, it inner loop can be evaluated as follows:

13=10+11+12+13=1+1+1+1=4
E: Multiply the link weights inside the loop: 1 X 4 = 4
F: Evaluate the loop by multiplying the link weights: 2 X 4 = 8.
G: Simplifying the loop further results in the total maximum number
of paths in the flow graph:

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 out link in the last step. Therefore the maximum number of different
paths is 8192 rather than 32,768.

STRUCTURED FLOWGRAPH:
Structured code can be defined in several different ways that do not involve ad-hoc rules such
as not using GOTOs.
A structured flow graph is one that can be reduced to a single link by successive application
of the transformations of Figure 5.7.
 Figure 5.7: Structured Flow graph Transformations.

The node-by-node reduction procedure can also be used as a test for structured code. Flow
graphs that DO NOT contains one or more of the graphs shown below (Figure 5.8) as sub
graphs are structured.
Jumping into loops
Jumping out of loops
Branching into decisions
Branching out of decisions

Figure 5.8: Un-structured sub-graphs.

LOWER PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:
A lower bound on the number of paths in a routine can be approximated for structured
flow graphs.
The arithmetic is as follows:

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
until step 3 (C) as below:

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

 If you observe the original graph, it takes at least two paths to cover
 and that it can be done in two paths.
If you have fewer paths in your test plan than this minimum you
probably haven't covered. It's another check. 

CALCULATING THE PROBABILITY:

Path selection should be biased toward the low - rather than the high-probability paths. This
raises an interesting question:

What is the probability of being at a certain point in a routine?

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 out link with a weight equal to the probability of going in
 that direction. 
 Evidently, the sum of the out link probabilities must equal 1 
For a simple loop, if the loop will be taken a mean of N times, the looping
 probability is N/(N + 1) and the probability of not looping is 1/(N + 1).
 A link that is not part of a decision node has a probability of 1. 
The arithmetic rules are those of ordinary arithmetic. 
 In this table, in case of a loop, PA is the probability of the link leaving the
 loop and PL is the probability of looping.
 The rules are those of ordinary probability theory. 
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.
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: 







Because PL + PA + PB + PC = 1, 1 - PL = PA + PB + PC, and
 Which is what we‘ve postulated for any decision? In other words,
division by 1 - PL renormalizes the out link probabilities so that their sum
equals unity after the loop is removed.
EXAMPLE:
Here is a complicated bit of logic. We want to know the
probability associated with cases A, B, and C. 

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

 Case C is similar and should yield a probability of 1 - 0.125 - 0.158 =

0.717:

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.
 Say that a path consisted of links a, b, c, d, e, and the associated
probabilities were .2, .5, 1., .01, and I respectively. Path abcbcbcdeabddea
would have a probability of 5 x 10-10.
Long paths are usually improbable. 

MEAN PROCESSING TIME OF A ROUTINE:

Given the execution time of all statements or instructions for every link in a flow graph and the
probability for each direction for all decisions are to find the mean processing time for the
routine as a whole.
The model has two weights associated with every link: the processing time for that link,
denoted by T, and the probability of that link P.
The arithmetic rules for calculating the mean time:

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.

3. Combine as many serial links as you can.

 Use the cross-term step to eliminate a node and to create the inner self - loop.
Finally, you can get the mean processing time, by using the arithmetic rules as follows:

PUSH/POP, GET/RETURN:
This model can be used to answer several different 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.
EXAMPLE 1 (PUSH / POP):
Here is the Push/Pop Arithmetic: 
 The numeral 1 is used to indicate that nothing of interest (neither
 PUSH nor POP) occurs on a given link.
"H" denotes PUSH and "P" denotes POP. The operations
are commutative, associative, and distributive. 

Consider the following flow graph:









P(P + 1)1{P(HH)n1HP1(P + H)1}n2P(HH)n1HPH
Simplifying by using the arithmetic tables, 
(P2 + P){P(HH)n1(P + H)}n1(HH)n1
(P2 + P){H2n1(P2 + 1)}n2H2n1
Below Table 5.9 shows several combinations of values for the two
looping terms - M1 is the number of times the inner loop will be taken and
M2 the number of times the outer loop will be taken. 
 Figure 5.9: Result of the PUSH / POP Graph Analysis.
These expressions state that the stack will be popped only if the inner loop
 is not taken.
The stack will be left alone only if the inner loop is iterated once, but
 it may also be pushed. 
For all other values of the inner loop, the stack will only be pushed. 

EXAMPLE 2 (GET / RETURN):

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

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

Consider the following flow graph: 






G(G + R)G(GR)*GGR*R
G(G + R)G3R*R
(G + R)G3R*
4 2
(G + G )R*
This expression specifies the conditions under which the resources will be
 balanced on leaving the routine. 
If the upper branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop must be
 taken four times.
If the lower branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop must be
 taken twice. 
For any other values, the routine will not balance. Therefore, the first loop
does not have to be instrumented to verify this behavior because its impact
should be nil. 

LIMITATIONS AND SOLUTIONS:

The main limitation to these applications is the problem of unachievable paths.

The node-by-node reduction procedure and most graph-theory-based algorithms work well when
all paths are possible, but may provide misleading results when some paths are
unachievable.
The approach to handling unachievable paths (for any application) is to partition the
graph into sub graphs so that all paths in each of the sub graphs are achievable.
The resulting sub graphs may overlap, because one path may be common to several
different sub graphs.
Each predicate's truth-functional value potentially splits the graph into two sub graphs.
For n predicates, there could be as many as 2n sub graphs.
REGULAR EXPRESSIONS AND FLOW ANOMALY DETECTION:

THE PROBLEM:
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.
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).
Some more application examples:
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.
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 flow graph lead to anomalous sequences on any path?
If so, what sequences and under what circumstances?
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:
Annotate each link in the graph with the appropriate operator or the null operator
1.
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

The theorem states that ss will appear in pp(srr)nrp if it appears in pp(srr)2rp.

 However, let

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

(p + pp + ps)[psr + ps(r + ps)]2rp

Multiplying out the expression and simplifying shows that there is no
p4 sequence.
Incidentally, the above observation is an informal proof of the wisdom of looping
twice discussed in Unit 2. Because data-flow anomalies are represented by two-
character sequences, it follows the above theorem that looping twice is what you
need to do to find such anomalies.

 LIMITATIONS:
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.
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.
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.

LOGIC BASED TESTING:-

OVERVIEW OF LOGIC BASED TESTING:

INTRODUCTION: 
The functional requirements of many programs can be specified by decision
tables, which provide a useful basis for program and test design.
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.
 "Logic" is one of the most often used words in programmers' vocabularies but one
of their least used techniques.
Boolean algebra is to logic as arithmetic is to mathematics. Without it, the tester
or programmer is cut off from many test and design techniques and tools that
incorporate those techniques.
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.

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEM:

The knowledge-based system (also expert system or ―artificial

intelligence‖ system has become the programming construct of choice for
 many applications that were once considered very difficult. 
Knowledge-based systems incorporate knowledge from a knowledge
domain such as medicine, law, or civil engineering into a database. The
data can then be queried and interacted with to provide solutions to
 problems in that domain. 
One implementation of knowledge-based systems is to incorporate the
expert's knowledge into a set of rules. The user can then provide data and
 ask questions based on that data.
The user's data is processed through the rule base to yield conclusions
(tentative or definite) and requests for more data. The processing is done
 by a program called the inference engine.
Understanding knowledge-based systems and their validation problems 
requires an understanding of formal logic.
Decision tables are extensively used in business data processing; Decision-table
preprocessors as extensions to COBOL are in common use; Boolean algebra is
embedded in the implementation of these processors.
Although programmed tools are nice to have, most of the benefits of Boolean
algebra can be reaped by wholly manual means if you have the right conceptual
tool: the Karnaugh-Veitch diagram is that conceptual tool.
 DECISION TABLES: 

Figure 6.1 is a limited - entry decision table. It consists of four areas called the condition
 stub, the condition entry, the action stub, and the action entry. 
Each column of the table is a rule that specifies the conditions under which the actions
 named in the action stub will take place. 
The condition stub is a list of names of conditions. 

Figure 6.1: Examples of Decision Table.

A more general decision table can be as below: 

Figure 6.2: Another Example of Decision Table.

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

Action 1 will take place if conditions 1 and 2 are met and if conditions 3 and 4 are not met (rule
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:
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).
Action 2 will be taken if the predicates are all false, (rule 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

Figure 6.3: The default rules of Table in Figure 6.1

DECISION-TABLE PROCESSORS:

Decision tables can be automatically translated into code and, as such, are a
higher-order language
If the rule is satisfied, the corresponding action takes place
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
Decision tables have become a useful tool in the programmer‘s kit, in business
data processing.

DECISION-TABLES AS BASIS FOR TEST CASE DESIGN:

The specification is given as a decision table or can be easily converted into one.
The orders, in which the predicates are evaluated does not affect interpretation of
the rules or the resulting action - i.e., an arbitrary permutation of the predicate
order will not, or should not, affect which action takes place.
The orders, in which the rules are evaluated does not affect the resulting action -
i.e., an arbitrary permutation of rules will not, or should not, affect which action
takes place.
Once a rule is satisfied and an action selected, no other rule need be examined.
If several actions can result from satisfying a rule, the order in which the actions
are executed doesn't matter.
 DECISION-TABLES AND STRUCTURE:

Decision tables can also be used to examine a program's structure. o

Figure 6.4 shows a program segment that consists of a decision tree.
o These decisions, in various combinations, can lead to actions 1, 2, or 3.

Figure 6.4 : A Sample Program

If the decision appears on a path, put in a YES or NO as appropriate. If the
decision does not appear on the path, put in an I, Rule 1 does not contain decision

The corresponding decision table is shown in Table 6.1

RULE RULE RULE RULE RULE RULE

1 2 3 4 5 6
CONDITION
A
CONDITION YES YES YES NO NO NO
B YES NO YES I I I
CONDITION I I I YES NO NO
C YES I NO I YES NO
CONDITION
D
ACTION 1 YES YES NO NO NO NO
ACTION 2 NO NO YES YES YES NO
ACTION 3 NO NO NO NO NO YES
Table 6.1: Decision Table corresponding to Figure 6.4
As an example, expanding the immaterial cases results as below:
 Table 6.2: Expansion of Table 6.1
Similarly, If we expand the immaterial cases for the above Table 6.1, it results in
Table 6.2 as below:
R 1 RULE 2 R 3 RULE 4 R5 R6
CONDITION A YY YYYY YY NNNN NN NN
CONDITION B YY NNNN YY YYNN NY YN
CONDITION C YN NNYY YN YYYY NN NN
CONDITION D YY YNNY NN NYYN YY NN
Sixteen cases are represented in Table 6.1, and no case appears twice.
Consequently, the flow graph appears to be complete and consistent.
As a first check, before you look for all sixteen combinations, count the number
of Y's and N's in each row. They should be equal. We can find the bug that way.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE - A TROUBLE SOME PROGRAM:

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

Table 6.3: Decision Table for Figure 6.5

PATH EXPRESSIONS:
GENERAL:
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.
In logic-based testing we focus on the truth values of control flow predicates.
A predicate is implemented as a process whose outcome is a truth-functional
value.
For our purpose, logic-based testing is restricted to binary predicates.
We start by generating path expressions by path tracing as in Unit V, but this
time, our purpose is to convert the path expressions into Boolean algebra, using
the predicates' truth values (e.g., A and ) as weights.
 BOOLEAN ALGEBRA: o
 STEPS:
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 over scored (say ).
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 .
If two or more paths merge at a node, the fact is expressed by use of a plus
sign (+) which means "OR".

Figure 6.5: A Troublesome Program

Using this convention, the truth-functional values for several of the nodes can be
expressed in terms of segments from previous nodes. Use the node name to
identify the point.

There are only two numbers in Boolean algebra: zero (0) and one (1). One means
"always true" and zero means "always false".
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: 
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.
Karnaugh-Veitch chart reduces Boolean algebraic manipulations to graphical
trivia.
Beyond six variables these diagrams get cumbersome and may not be effective.
SINGLE VARIABLE: 
Figure 6.6 shows all the Boolean functions of a single variable and their
equivalent representation as a KV chart.
The charts show all possible truth values that the variable A can have.
A "1" means the variable‘s value is "1" or TRUE. A "0" means that the variable's
value is 0 or FALSE.
The entry in the box (0 or 1) specifies whether the function that the chart
represents is true or false for that value of the variable.
We usually do not explicitly put in 0 entries but specify only the conditions under
which the function is true.
 Figure 6.6: KV Charts for Functions of a Single Variable.
TWO VARIABLES:
Figure 6.7 shows eight of the sixteen possible functions of two variables.
Each box corresponds to the combination of values of the variables for the row
and column of that box.
A pair may be adjacent either horizontally or vertically but not diagonally.
Any variable that changes in either the horizontal or vertical direction does not
appear in the expression.
In the fifth chart, the B variable changes from 0 to 1 going down the column, and
because the A variable's value for the column is 1; the chart is equivalent to a
simple A.
 Figure 6.7: KV Charts for Functions of Two Variables.

Figure 6.8 shows the remaining eight functions of two variables.

The first chart has two 1's in it, but because they are not adjacent, each must be
taken separately.
They are written using a plus sign.
It is clear now why there are sixteen functions of two variables.
Each box in the KV chart corresponds to a combination of the variables'
values. o That combination might or might not be in the function (i.e., the box
corresponding to that combination might have a 1 or 0 entry).
n
o Since n variables lead to 2 combinations of 0 and 1 for the variables and each
such combination (box) can be filled or not filled, leading to 2 2n ways of
doing this.
 Figure 6.8: More Functions of Two Variables.
Consequently for one variable there are 221 = 4 functions, 16 functions of 2
variables, 256 functions of 3 variables, 16,384 functions of 4 variables, and so on.
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: 
KV charts for three variables are shown below.
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.
A three-variable chart can have groupings of 1, 2, 4, and 8
boxes. o A few examples will illustrate the principles:
 Figure 6.8: KV Charts for Functions of Three Variables.
You'll notice that there are several ways to circle the boxes into maximum-
sized covering groups.