Scribd
Upload
3K views

Testing Lecture 15 - Call Graph, Path-Based Integration

The document discusses different integration testing techniques based on call graphs. It describes pairwise integration which tests all pairs of units without stubs/drivers. Neighborhood integration selects units in a depth-first order to avoid stubs/drivers. Path-based integration uses module execution paths and messages to define MM-paths between units for testing. The techniques aim to reduce testing effort compared to traditional decomposition-based integration.

Uploaded by

ahmad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views

Testing Lecture 15 - Call Graph, Path-Based Integration

The document discusses different integration testing techniques based on call graphs. It describes pairwise integration which tests all pairs of units without stubs/drivers. Neighborhood integration selects units in a depth-first order to avoid stubs/drivers. Path-based integration uses module execution paths and messages to define MM-paths between units for testing. The techniques aim to reduce testing effort compared to traditional decomposition-based integration.

Uploaded by

ahmad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 29

Software Testing & Implementation

Lecture No. 15
Last Lecture Review

 Integration Testing
 Based on Functional Decomposition
 Top-Down
 Bottom-up
 Sandwich
 Big Bang

2 Software Testing
What Will You Learn Today?

 Call Graph-Based Integration


 Pair-Wise Integration
 Neighborhood Integration
 Path-Based Integration

3 Software Testing
Call Graph-Based Integration

4 Software Testing
Call Graph-Based Integration

 One of the drawbacks of decomposition


based integration is that the basis is the
functional decomposition tree
 Call graph mitigate this deficiency
 Behavioral testing
 Two approaches to integration testing
 Pair-wise integration
 Neighborhood integration

5 Software Testing
Pair-Wise Integration

 The idea behind pair-wise integration is to


eliminate the stub/driver development effort

 Similar to top-down or bottom-up integration

 Uses real code instead of stubs / drivers

 Reduces testing effort (no need to write


stubs/drivers)
6 Software Testing
Pair-Wise Integration

7 Software Testing
Neighbourhood Integration

 Typical top-down or bottom-up strategy


testing selects nodes in the breadth-first
order

 Neighbourhood integration selects nodes in


the depth-first order

 Avoids the need to write stubs / drivers

8 Software Testing
Neighbourhood Integration

 The neighborhood of a node in a graph is the


set of nodes that are one edge away from the
given node

 In a directed graph, this includes all the


immediate predecessor nodes and all the
immediate successor nodes (these
correspond to the set of stubs and drivers of
the node)

9 Software Testing
Neighborhood Integration

2 3 5
4

6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

10 Software Testing
Neighborhood Integration

Node Predecessors Successors


…. …. ….
3 1 8, 9, 10
16 5 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
… … …
… … …
… … …
… … …

11 Software Testing
Neighbourhood Integration

 Source node: a node with indegree= 0


 Sink node: a node with outdegree= 0
 Interior nodes = nodes-(source nodes + sink nodes)

Neighborhoods = interior nodes + source nodes

Neighborhoods = nodes – (source nodes + sink


nodes) + source nodes

Neighborhoods =nodes –sink nodes

12 Software Testing
Pros & Cons

+ Eliminate the stub/driver development effort.


+ Matches well with developments
characterized by build and composition

‒ The biggest drawback is the fault isolation


problem, specially for large neighborhood.
Resolving a fault in a node means changing
the unit’s code which in turn means that all
previously tested neighborhoods that contain
the changed node need to be tested
13 Software Testing
Path-Based Integration

14 Software Testing
Path-Based Integration

 A source node in a program is a statement


fragment at which program execution begins
or resumes
 A sink node in a program is a statement
fragment at which program execution
terminates
 A Module Execution Path (MEP) is a
sequence of statements that begins with a
source node and ends with a sink node
15
Path-Based Integration

 A message is a programming language


mechanism by which one unit transfers
control to another unit – Examples: procedure
call, function references

 An MM-path is an interleaved sequence of


module execution paths and messages

16 Software Testing
Path-Based Integration

 Given a set of units, their MM-Path graph is


the directed graph in which nodes are
module execution paths and edges
correspond to messages and returns from
one unit to another

17
MM Paths

1
1 1
2

2 2 3

3 4
3 4
5

5
4
6

18
Source Nodes and Sink Nodes
A sink node in a program is a statement fragment at
which program execution terminates
Source Nodes
1

Sink Nodes 2

3 4

A source node in a program is a statement fragment


at which program execution begins or resumes
19
MM Paths
A sink node in a program is a statement fragment at
which program execution terminates
Source Nodes

Sink Nodes

A source node in a program is a statement fragment


at which program execution begins or resumes
20
MM Paths
A sink node in a program is a statement fragment at
which program execution terminates
Source Nodes

1
Sink Nodes
2 3

A source node in a program is a statement fragment


at which program execution begins or resumes
21
MM Paths
A sink node in a program is a statement fragment at
which program execution terminates
Source Nodes
1
1 1
Sink Nodes 2

2 2 3

3 4
3 4
5

5
4
6

A source node in a program is a statement fragment


at which program execution begins or resumes
22
Module Execution Path (MEP)

 MEP (A, I) = < 1, 2, 3, 6 >


 MEP (A, II) = < 1, 2, 4 >
 ….
 ….
 ….
 ….
 ….

23
Module Execution Path (MEP)

 MEP (A, I) = < 1, 2, 3, 6 >


 MEP (A, II) = < 1, 2, 4 >
 MEP (A, III) = < 5, 6 >
 MEP (B, I) = < 1, 2 >
 MEP (B, II) = < 3, 4 >
 MEP (C, I) = < 1, 2, 4, 5 >
 MEP (C, II) = < 1, 3, 4, 5 >

24
MM Paths

1
1 1
MEP (A, II)
MEP (B, I) MEP (C, II)
2

MEP (A, I) 2 2 3

3 4
MEP (C, I)
3 4
5

5
4
6
MEP (B, II)
MEP (A, III)

25
Pros & Cons

+ MM-Paths are a hybrid of functional and


structural testing

+ Path-based integration works equally well for


software developed in the traditional waterfall
process or with one of the composition-based
alternative life cycle models

+ Path-based integration testing is closely


coupled with the actual system behavior
26
Pros & Cons

‒ More effort is needed to identify the MM-


Paths. This effort is probably offset by the
elimination of stub and driver development.

27
Recap

 Call Graph-Based Integration


 Pair-Wise Integration
 Neighbourhood Integration
 Path-Based Integration

28
Questions

29

You might also like