ICST Tutorial

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide
Paul Ammann Software Engineering Group George Mason University

Presented at ICST April 2, 2009 Denver, Colorado Slides Co-Produced with Jeff Offutt
Here! Test This!

Testing decades ago Testing twodecade ago Testing a Now?
A A stack of computer and no only low no documentation complex conglomeration documentation A disk printoutsand level documentation
Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide 2009 2
A Talk in 4 Parts
1. Why do we test ?
Costs and Attitudes
2. What should we do during testing ?

Test Activities Software Testing Terms Evolving Notion of Coverage Criteria
3. How do we get to this future of testing ?

Beizers Maturity Levels
4. Background for ICST sessions

We are in the middle of a revolution in how software is tested
Research is finally meeting practice

Part 1 : Why Test?

If you dont know why youre conducting a test, it wont be very helpful

Written test objectives are rare or useless

The software shall be easily maintainable What fact is each test trying to verify?
Requirements definition teams should include testers!

Ensures testing can satisfy test objectives Provides rationale for tests
How much testing is enough?

2009 4
Cost of Testing
Youre going to spend at least half of your development budget on testing, whether you want to or not
In the real-world, testing is the principle post-design activity Restricting early testing usually increases cost Extensive hardware-software integration requires more testing
2009
Cost of Not Testing

Program Managers often say: Testing is too expensive.

Not testing is even more expensive Planning for testing after development is prohibitively expensive Hardware developers spend huge amounts on testing Software test tools arent that expensive. Many are free!!!
2009 6
Caveat: Impact of New Tools and Techniques

Theyre teaching a new way of plowing over at the Grange tonight - you going? Naw - I already dont plow as good as I know how...
Good Techniques and Tools are Not Enough: Practitioners Need to Adopt Them Too!
Part 2 : What ?
But What should we do ?

1. Types of test activities 2. Software testing terms 3. Changing notions of testing
test coverage criteria criteria based on structures
2009
Testing in the 21st Century

We are going through a time of change Software Defines Behavior

network routers financial networks telephone switching networks other infrastructure airplanes, air traffic control spaceships watches ovens remote controllers
Testing ideas have matured enough to be used in practice

PDAs memory seats DVD players garage door openers cell phones
Embedded Control Applications

Safety critical, real-time software Web apps must be highly reliable And of course security is now all about software faults !
2009 9
Test Activities

Testing can be broken up into four general types of activities 1. Test Design 1.a) Criteria-based 2. Test Automation 1.b) Human-based 3. Test Execution 4. Test Evaluation Each type of activity requires different skills, background knowledge, education and training No reasonable software development organization uses the same people for requirements, design, implementation, integration and configuration control
Why do test organizations still use the same people for all four test activities?? This is clearly a waste of resources
1. Test Design (a) Criteria-Based

Design test values to satisfy coverage criteria or other engineering goal

This is the most technical job in software testing Requires knowledge of :

Discrete math Programming Testing

Requires much of a traditional CS degree This is intellectually stimulating, rewarding, and challenging Test design is analogous to software architecture on the development side Using people who are not qualified to design tests is a sure way to get ineffective tests
2009 11
1. Test Design (b) Human-Based

Design test values based on domain knowledge of the program and human knowledge of testing

This is much harder than it may seem to developers Criteria-based approaches can be blind to special situations Requires knowledge of :
Domain, testing, and user interfaces
Requires almost no traditional CS

A background in the domain of the software is essential An empirical background is very helpful (biology, psychology, ) A logic background is very helpful (law, philosophy, math, )
This is intellectually stimulating, rewarding, and challenging

But not to typical CS majors they want to solve problems and build things
2009
12
2. Test Automation
Embed test values into executable scripts

This is slightly less technical Requires knowledge of programming

Fairly straightforward programming small pieces and simple algorithms

Requires very little theory Very boring for test designers Programming is out of reach for many domain experts Who is responsible for determining and embedding the expected outputs ?
Test designers may not always know the expected outputs Test evaluators need to get involved early to help with this
2009
13
3. Test Execution
Run tests on the software and record the results

This is easy and trivial if the tests are well automated Requires basic computer skills
Interns Employees with no technical background

Asking qualified test designers to execute tests is a sure way to convince them to look for a development job If, for example, GUI tests are not well automated, this requires a lot of manual labor Test executors have to be very careful and meticulous with bookkeeping
2009
14
4. Test Evaluation
Evaluate results of testing, report to developers

This is much harder than it may seem Requires knowledge of :

Domain Testing User interfaces and psychology
Usually requires almost no traditional CS

A background in the domain of the software is essential An empirical background is very helpful (biology, psychology, ) A logic background is very helpful (law, philosophy, math, )
This is intellectually stimulating, rewarding, and challenging

But not to typical CS majors they want to solve problems and build things
2009
15
Other Activities

Test management : Sets policy, organizes team, interfaces with development, chooses criteria, decides how much automation is needed, Test maintenance : Tests must be saved for reuse as software evolves
Requires cooperation of test designers and automators Deciding when to trim the test suite is partly policy and partly technical and in general, very hard ! Tests should be put in configuration control
Test documentation : All parties participate

Each test must document why criterion and test requirement satisfied or a rationale for human-designed tests Traceability throughout the process must be ensured Documentation must be kept in the automated tests
2009
16
Approximate Number of Personnel

A mature test organization may need only one test designer to work with several test automaters, executors and evaluators Improved automation will reduce the number of test executors
Theoretically to zero but not in practice
Putting the wrong people on the wrong tasks leads to inefficiency, low job satisfaction and low job performance
A qualified test designer will be bored with other tasks and look for a job in development A qualified test evaluator will not understand the benefits of test criteria
Test evaluators have the domain knowledge, so they must be free to add tests that blind engineering processes will not think of
2009
17
Types of Test Activities Summary

1a. Design Criteria 1b. Design Human 2. 3. 4. Design test values to satisfy engineering goals Requires knowledge of discrete math, programming and testing Design test values from domain knowledge and intuition Requires knowledge of domain, UI, testing Requires knowledge of scripting Execution Evaluation Run tests on the software and record the results Requires very little knowledge Evaluate results of testing, report to developers Requires domain knowledge

Automation Embed test values into executable scripts
These four general test activities are quite different It is a poor use of resources to use people inappropriately Most test teams use the same people for ALL FOUR activities !!
2009
18
Applying Test Activities
To use our people effectively and to test efficiently we need a process that lets test designers raise their level of abstraction
2009
19
Model-Driven Test Design

model / structure test requirements refined requirements / test specs DESIGN ABSTRACTION LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION ABSTRACTION LEVEL
software artifact
input values
pass / fail
test results
test scripts
test cases
2009
20
Model-Driven Test Design Steps

model / structure analysis criterion refine refined test requirements / requirements test specs generate
DESIGN ABSTRACTION LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION ABSTRACTION LEVEL
software artifact
input values prefix postfix expected
execute evaluate automate pass / test test test fail results scripts cases
2009
21
Model-Driven Test Design Activities

model / structure test requirements refined requirements / test specs DESIGN ABSTRACTION LEVEL
Test Design
software artifact
IMPLEMENTATION Raising our abstraction level makes ABSTRACTION test design MUCH easier LEVEL
input values
pass / fail
test results
test scripts
test cases
Test Evaluation
Test Execution
2009 22
Software Testing Terms

Like any field, software testing comes with a large number of specialized terms that have particular meanings in this context Some of the following terms are standardized, some are used consistently throughout the literature and the industry, but some vary by author, topic, or test organization The definitions here are intended to be the most commonly used
2009
23
Important Terms Validation & Verification (IEEE)

Validation : The process of evaluating software at the end of software development to ensure compliance with intended usage Verification : The process of determining whether the products of a given phase of the software development process fulfill the requirements established during the previous phase
IV&V stands for independent verification and validation
2009
24
Test Engineer & Test Managers

Test Engineer : An IT professional who is in charge of one or more technical test activities
designing test inputs producing test values running test scripts analyzing results reporting results to developers and managers
Test Manager : In charge of one or more test engineers

sets test policies and processes interacts with other managers on the project otherwise helps the engineers do their work
2009
25
Test Engineer Activities

Test Manager
design
Test Designs
Test Engineer
instantiate
Executable Tests
Test Engineer
Computer
execute
Output
Evaluate
2009
26
Static and Dynamic Testing

Static Testing : Testing without executing the program

This include software inspections and many forms of analysis Very effective at finding certain kinds of problems especially potential faults, that is, mistakes that may only be visible after the program evolves Example faults identifiable with static analysis: Overriding equals(), but not hashCode() Implementing clone() by calling a constructor Using foreign data prior to scrubbing Hypertext inputs Parts of SQL queries Array indices
Dynamic Testing : Testing by executing the program with real inputs

Mostly what this talk is about
2009
27
Software Faults, Errors & Failures

Software Fault : A static defect in the software Software Error : An incorrect internal state that is the manifestation of some fault Software Failure : External, incorrect behavior with respect to the requirements or other description of the expected behavior
Faults in software are design mistakes and will always exist
2009
28
Testing & Debugging
Testing : Finding inputs that cause the software to fail

The principle topic of this lecture
Debugging : The process of finding a fault given a failure

Fault localization is a huge issue Some faults have failures that are hard to reproduce Often desirable to recast a problem report as a short test case that also reveals the failure General principle: Faults usually have short revealing test cases These test cases are excellent candidates for regression tests
2009
29
Fault & Failure Model

Three conditions necessary for a failure to be observed 1. Reachability : The location or locations in the program that contain the fault must be reached 2. Infection : The state of the program must be incorrect 3. Propagation : The infected state must propagate to cause some output of the program to be incorrect
2009
30
Test Case

Test Case Values : The values that directly satisfy one test requirement Expected Results : The result that will be produced when executing the test if the program satisfies it intended behavior
2009
31
Observability and Controllability

Software Observability : How easy it is to observe the behavior of a program in terms of its outputs, effects on the environment and other hardware and software components
Software that affects hardware devices, databases, or remote files have low observability
Software Controllability : How easy it is to provide a program with the needed inputs, in terms of values, operations, and behaviors
Easy to control software with inputs from keyboards Inputs from hardware sensors or distributed software is harder Data abstraction reduces controllability and observability
2009
32
Inputs to Affect Controllability and Observability

Prefix Values : Any inputs necessary to put the software into the appropriate state to receive the test case values Postfix Values : Any inputs that need to be sent to the software after the test case values Two types of postfix values
1. Verification Values : Values necessary to see the results of the test case values 2. Exit Commands : Values needed to terminate the program or otherwise return it to a stable state
Executable Test Script : A test case that is prepared in a form to be executed automatically on the test software and produce a report
Example: Junit tests
2009
33
Top-Down and Bottom-Up Testing

Top-Down Testing : Test the main procedure, then go down through procedures it calls, and so on Bottom-Up Testing : Test the leaves in the tree (procedures that make no calls), and move up to the root.
Each procedure is not tested until all of its children have been tested
2009
34
White-box and Black-box Testing

Black-box testing : Deriving tests from external descriptions of the software, including specifications, requirements, and design White-box testing : Deriving tests from the source code internals of the software, specifically including branches, individual conditions, and statements
This view is really out of date. The more general question is: from what level of abstraction to we derive tests? tests?
Evolving Notion of Coverage Criteria
Old view of testing is of testing at specific software development phases

Unit, module, integration, system
New view is in terms of structures and criteria

Graphs, logical expressions, syntax, input space
2009
36
Traditional : Testing at Different Levels

main Class P

Acceptance testing: Is the software acceptable to the user? System testing: Test the overall functionality of the system Integration testing: Test how modules interact with each other Module testing: Test each class, file, module or component Unit testing: Test each unit (method) individually
37
Class A method mA1() method mA2()
Class B method mB1() method mB2()

2009
Beizers Insight : Find a Graph and Cover It

Tailored to:
a particular software artifact code, design, specifications a particular phase of the lifecycle requirements, specification, design, implementation

But graphs do not characterize all testing techniques well Four abstract models seem to suffice
2009
38
New : Test Coverage Criteria

A testers job is simple : Define a model of the software, then find ways to cover it
Test
Requirements : Specific things that must be satisfied or covered during testing
Test
Criterion : A collection of rules and a process that define test requirements Testing researchers have defined dozens of criteria, but they are all really just a few criteria on four types of structures
2009
39
New : Criteria Based on Structures

Structures : Four ways to model software
1. Graphs
2. Logical Expressions
(not X or not Y) and A and B A: {0, 1, >1} B: {600, 700, 800} C: {swe, cs, isa, infs} if (x > y) z = x - y; else z = 2 * x;
2009 40
3. Input Domain Characterization
4. Syntactic Structures
1. Graph Coverage Structural

2 6
1 3 This graph may represent

statements & branches methods & calls components & signals states and transitions
7 Node (Statement) Edge (Branch) Path Cover every node Cover every edge Cover every path
12567 12567 12567 1343567 1343567 1257 1357 13567 1357 1343567
2009
134357
41
1. Graph Coverage Data Flow

def = {a , m} def = {m} use = {y}
2
def = {x, y} use = {x} use = {a}
6
use = {m}
1
use = {x} def = {a}
5 3
use = {a}
DefsDefs & Uses All Uses Pairs All Every(1,2)), (x, 1, (1,3)) (x, 1, def used once Every def reaches every
(y, 1, 4), (y, 1, 6) use
This graph contains:

defs: nodes & edges where variables get values uses: nodes & edges where values are accessed
4
def = {m} use = {y}
1, 2, 5, 6, 7
(a, 2, (5,6)), (a, 2, (5,7)), (a, 1, 2, (5,6)), 5, 6, 7 3, 1, 2, 5, 7 3, (5,7)), (a,
1, 2, 7), (m, 7 1, 2, 5, 7 (m, 3, 4, 3, 5,4, 7), (m, 6, 7) 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 1, 3, 5, 7

2009
1, 3, 4, 3, 5,7
42
1. Graph - FSM Example Memory Seats in a Lexus ES 300

Guard (safety constraint) [Ignition = off] | Button2 Trigger (input)
Driver 1 Configuration
[Ignition = off] | Button1 [Ignition = on] |
Driver 2 Configuration
seatBack () seatBottom () lumbar () sideMirrors ()
(to Modified)
Ignition = off
New Configuration Driver 2
Ignition = off
[Ignition = on] |
[Ignition = on] | [Ignition = on] |
[Ignition = on] | Reset AND Button2
New Configuration Driver 1

[Ignition = on] | Reset AND Button1
Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide 2009
Modified Configuration
43
( (a > b) or G ) and (x < y)
Transitions Logical Program Decision Statements Software Specifications Expressions
2009
44
( (a > b) or G ) and (x < y)

Predicate Coverage : Each predicate must be true and false

( (a>b) or G ) and (x < y) = True, False
Clause Coverage : Each clause must be true and false

(a > b) = True, False G = True, False (x < y) = True, False
Combinatorial Coverage : Various combinations of clauses

Active Clause Coverage: Each clause must determine the predicates result
2009
45
2. Logic Active Clause Coverage or Multiple Condition/Decision Coverage (MCDC) ( (a > b) or G ) and (x < y)
With these values for G and (x<y), (a>b) determines the value of the predicate
1 T 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 T 6 T
F F T F T T
T T T T T F
2009 46
duplicate
2: Logic Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) Coverage

Consider the DNF predicate: f = ab + cd For implicant ab

For a, choose UTP, NFP pair TTFF, FTFF For b, choose UTP, NFP pair TTFT, TFFT
ab cd 00 01 11 10 t t 00 01 11 t t t t t 10
For implicant cd
For c, choose UTP, NFP pair FFTT, FFFT For d, choose UTP, NFP pair FFTT, FFTF
Possible CUTPNFP test set

{TTFF, TTFT, FFTT //UTPs FTFF, TFFT, FFFT, FFTF} //NFPs
3. Input Domain Characterization

Describe the input domain of the software

Identify inputs, parameters, or other categorization Partition each input into finite sets of representative values Choose combinations of values
System level
Number of students Level of course Major { 0, 1, >1 } { 600, 700, 800 } { swe, cs, isa, infs }
Unit level
Parameters F (int X, int Y) Possible values X: { <0, 0, 1, 2, >2 }, Y : { 10, 20, 30 } Tests F (-5, 10), F (0, 20), F (1, 30), F (2, 10), F (5, 20)
2009
48
4. Syntactic Structures

Based on a grammar, or other syntactic definition Primary example is mutation testing

1. 2. 3. 4. Induce small changes to the program: mutants Find tests that cause the mutant programs to fail: killing mutants Failure is defined as different output from the original program Check the output of useful tests on the original program
Example program and mutants

if (x > y) if (x > y) z = x - y; else z = 2 * x;
(if (x >= y)
z = x - y; ( z = x + y; ( z = x m; else z = 2 * x;
2009
Relational Operator Replacement Arithmetic Operator Replacement Scalar Variable Replacement
49
Source of Structures

These structures can be extracted from lots of software artifacts

Graphs can be extracted from UML use cases, finite state machines, source code, Logical expressions can be extracted from decisions in program source, guards on transitions, conditionals in use cases,
Model-based testing derives tests from a model that describes some aspects of the system under test
The model usually describes part of the behavior The source is usually not considered a model
2009
50
Coverage Overview
Four Structures for Modeling Software Graphs
Applied to
Logic
Applied to Source Specs
Input Space
FSMs DNF
Syntax
Applied to
Source Design
Specs Use cases

2009
Source
Models Input
51
Integ
Coverage
Given a set of test requirements TR for coverage criterion C, a test set T satisfies C coverage if and only if for every test requirement tr in TR, there is at least one test t in T TR, such that t satisfies tr

Infeasible test requirements : test requirements that cannot be satisfied

No test case values exist that meet the test requirements Dead code Detection of infeasible test requirements is formally undecidable for most test criteria
Thus, 100% coverage is impossible in practice
2009
52
Two Ways to Use Test Criteria

1. Directly generate test values to satisfy the criterion often assumed by the research community most obvious way to use criteria very hard without automated tools 2. Generate test values externally and measure against the criterion usually favored by industry
sometimes misleading if tests do not reach 100% coverage, what does that mean?
Test criteria are sometimes called metrics
2009
53
Generators and Recognizers

Generator : A procedure that automatically generates values to satisfy a criterion Recognizer : A procedure that decides whether a given set of test values satisfies a criterion Both problems are provably undecidable for most criteria It is possible to recognize whether test cases satisfy a criterion far more often than it is possible to generate tests that satisfy the criterion Coverage analysis tools are quite plentiful

2009
54
Comparing Criteria with Subsumption

Criteria Subsumption : A test criterion C1 subsumes C2 if and only if every set of test cases that satisfies criterion C1 also satisfies C2 Must be true for every set of test cases Example : If a test set has covered every branch in a program (satisfied the branch criterion), then the test set is guaranteed to also have covered every statement

2009
55
Test Coverage Criteria

Traditional software testing is expensive and labor-intensive Formal coverage criteria are used to decide which test inputs to use More likely that the tester will find problems Greater assurance that the software is of high quality and reliability A goal or stopping rule for testing Criteria makes testing more efficient and effective
But how do we start to apply these ideas in practice?

Part 3 : How ?
Now we know why and what How do we get there ?
2009
57
Beizers Maturity Levels

Level 0 : Theres no difference between testing and debugging Level 1 : The purpose of testing is to show correctness Level 2 : The purpose of testing is to show that the software doesnt work Level 3 : The purpose of testing is not to prove anything specific, but to reduce the risk of using the software Level 4 : Testing is a mental discipline that helps all IT professionals develop higher quality software
2009
58
Level 0 Thinking

Testing is the same as debugging Does not distinguish between incorrect behavior and mistakes in the program Does not help develop software that is reliable or safe
This is what we teach undergraduate CS majors

Level 1 Thinking

Purpose is to show correctness Correctness is impossible to achieve What do we know if no failures?

Good software or bad tests?
Test engineers have no:

Strict goal Real stopping rule Formal test technique Test managers are powerless
This is what hardware engineers often expect

Level 2 Thinking

Purpose is to show failures Looking for failures is a negative activity Puts testers and developers into an adversarial relationship What if there are no failures?
This describes most software companies. How can we move to a team approach ??
Level 3 Thinking

Testing can only show the presence of failures Whenever we use software, we incur some risk Risk may be small and consequences unimportant Risk may be great and the consequences catastrophic Testers and developers work together to reduce risk
This describes a few enlightened software companies

Level 4 Thinking
A mental discipline that increases quality

Testing is only one way to increase quality Test engineers can become technical leaders of the project Primary responsibility to measure and improve software quality Their expertise should help the developers
This is the way traditional engineering works

Summary

More testing saves money

Planning for testing saves lots of money
Testing is no longer an art form

Engineers have a tool box of test criteria
When testers become engineers, the product gets better

The developers get better
2009
64
Open Questions

Which criteria work best on embedded, highly reliable software?

Which software structure to use?
How can we best automate this testing with robust tools?

Deriving the software structure Constructing the test requirements Creating values from test requirements Creating full test scripts Solution to the mapping problem

Empirical validation Technology transition Application to new domains
2009
65
Summary of Todays New Ideas

Why do we test to reduce the risk of using the software Four types of test activities test design, automation, execution and evaluation Software terms faults, failures, the RIP model, observability and controllability Four structures test requirements and criteria Test process maturity levels level 4 is a mental discipline that improves the quality of the software
Earlier and better testing can empower the test manager

Part 4: Testing Topics by ICST Section

ICST has 16 Sessions with Papers: 13 Research and 3 Industry

R1: GUI Testing R2: Model Checking R3: Embedded and Real-Time Testing R4: QA and Test Management R5: Model-Based Testing R6: Static Analysis R7: Security Testing R8: Empirical Studies R9: Test Case Generation R10: Web Testing R11: Aspects and Faults R12: Mutation and Non Functional Testing R13: Assertions and Failure States I3: Real World Testing I2: Test Management I3: Automation
Following slides briefly overview foundations for each Session

Tall Order! Ill be brief
2009
67
Section R1: GUI Testing

Basic Issues
Many systems have only a GUI interface Problems may exist in GUI, or in underlying application Structural Tests Legal event sequences / hiding of uninteresting events Model Based Tests Operational / Behavioral / Graph models
Research Foci
Case studies on industrial software Reuse and scalability are huge issues Particularly in the presence of maintenance Crash testing
2009
68
Section R2: Model Checking

Basic Issues
Define a labeled state space with transitions: A state machine Check (temporal) properties over paths in that state space Bonus: Counterexamples Standard Problem: Scalability
Research Foci
Show two descriptions consistent (or identical) Test case generation Interpreting counterexamples as test cases Using model checker as test generation engine Model checking real code Direct application to programs (eg JavaPathFinder)
2009
69
Section R3: Embedded and Real-Time Testing

Basic Issues
Embedded software has a huge observability problem How do you know the exact state of the SUT? Testing timeliness constraints as well as functional correctness
Research Foci
Abstract models for SUT Notions such as Partial Observability Passive Testing Non interference of test harness with observations Test specification frameworks for specific domains TTCN-3
2009
70
Section R4: QA and Test Management

Basic Issues
Scale: How to manage very large artifacts Comprehensiveness: How to encompass heterogeneous analyses?
Research Foci
In vivo testing of deployed applications Contrast with testing in a lab No clean slate Flexible frameworks to manage analysis Dealing with large test suites Substantial test set up time required Contention for test resource between different test tasks
2009
71
Section R5: Model-Based Testing

Basic Issues
Test cases are derived from a model of the SUT Modeling addresses many engineering concerns Very active research area
Research Foci
Testing real-time systems when to best schedule a test? Testing from UML Sequence and state machine models Exploring the link between formal modeling and model-based testing
2009
72
Section R6: Static Analysis

Basic Issues
Analyze code without execution Widely used for identifying vulnerabilities and other flaws
Research Foci
Empirical analysis of effectiveness of static analysis tools Fault detection Refactoring Symbolic analysis Safety analysis for critical software Actionable static analysis alerts Distinguishing false positives from true positives
2009
73
Section R7: Security Testing

Basic Issues
Testing intended security functions Very similar to testing any other type of function Testing for unintended behavior Much harder focus is on what system does not do
Research Foci
Adapting functional tests to also test intended security functions Separation of concerns implementations Predicting which components are attack targets Early identification of problem components Issue of false positives vs. true positives Very high level models Seasonal variations in vulnerability discovery
2009
74
Section R8: Empirical Studies

Basic Issue
Empirical studies are crucial foundations for software engineering Only so much you can do with theorems
Research Foci
Studying automating software testing in large organizations What are the factors that lead to success? Studying capture/recapture models Effect of number of natural faults Studying redundancy in test cases Basis for reducing test sets such as regression sets
2009
75
Section R9: Test Case Generation

Basic Issues
Old, but very important problem We need tools that can automatically generate good test data!
Research Foci
Generating feasible paths in finite state machines Hard problem whether a given transition is, in fact, feasible Generating test inputs to follow paths Key factors Constraint solving Path explosion Relation of paths to other coverage goals Test inputs to satisfy complex predicates Efficient algorithms
2009
76
Section R10: Web Testing

Basic Issues
Web testing is large, complex issue Reliability requirements are very high Customers simply click away from unreliable web applications
Research Foci
Testing tools for web services Data driven test generation Taking advantage of user session data Identifying key relationships by observing actual behavior Penetration testing By definition, every web application is a potential target Key: Find vulnerabilities in web applications before the bad guys
2009
77
Section R11: Aspects and Faults

Basic Issues
Very disparate session Logic faults, fault localization, and aspect-oriented programming!
Research Foci
Minimizing the size of fault-detecting test sets (logic testing) Analyzing infeasible test requirements Making sure every test has a reason for being in the set Tracing failed test cases back to faults Probabilistic distributions of faults Aspect-Oriented programming Using test cases to drive pointcut descriptors
2009
78
Section R12: Mutation and Non Functional Testing

Basic Issues
Mutation testing is a powerful approach to testing Goal is a test set sensitive enough to detect all mutants Mutants used as source for seeded faults Testing nonfunctional properties such as response time and security
Research Foci
Mutation testing for logic expressions New mutation operators with much more powerful mutants Revived research interest in Higher-Order Mutants (HOMs) Mutation testing of database applications Goal: Test databases rich enough to detect query faults Testing component-based distributed systems Widespread applications demand effective approaches
2009
79
Section R13: Assertions and Failure States

Basic Issues
Assertions are statements that must be true at given points in execution Extremely powerful approach to fault detection Failure states are program states after something bad happens.
Research Foci
Extracting tests from runtime failures Automatically turning any failure (in operation) into a test Huge potential practical impact Clearly, overhead needs to be low Assertion-based test validation When software is modified, which assertions need to be checked? Metamorphic testing Solving the oracle problem by relating multiple program runs Experience with implementing this approach via assertions
2009
80
Section I1: Real World Testing

Basic Issue
Testability: The degree to which components are easy to test Components can be designed to be easier to test The efficiency of the test process
Research Foci
Why testability is hard in practice Organizational factors Technical Factors
2009
81
Section I2: Test Management

Basic Issues
How to plan for test phase of a project How to optimize test resources
Research Foci
Estimating test effort based on use cases Case study with comparison to other approaches Estimating test effort for functional test cases Case study Regression set selection Which tests need to be rerun Evaluation on large industrial system
2009
82
Section I3: Automation

Basic Issues
Test generation Code for multi-core processors Specialized languages
Research Foci
Test generation to satisfy coverage criteria Application to safety critical system How to test code optimized for multi-core? Testing multi-threaded is much harder than single-threaded! Developing high level languages for specific domains High level test approaches are a necessary complement
2009
83

ICST Tutorial

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ICST Tutorial

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Paul Ammann Software Engineering Group George Mason University

Here! Test This!

2. What should we do during testing ?

3. How do we get to this future of testing ?

4. Background for ICST sessions

Research is finally meeting practice

Part 1 : Why Test?

Written test objectives are rare or useless

Requirements definition teams should include testers!

How much testing is enough?

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Cost of Not Testing

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Caveat: Impact of New Tools and Techniques

But What should we do ?

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Testing in the 21st Century

We are going through a time of change Software Defines Behavior

Testing ideas have matured enough to be used in practice

Embedded Control Applications

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

1. Test Design (a) Criteria-Based

This is the most technical job in software testing Requires knowledge of :

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

1. Test Design (b) Human-Based

Requires almost no traditional CS

This is intellectually stimulating, rewarding, and challenging

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

This is slightly less technical Requires knowledge of programming

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

This is much harder than it may seem Requires knowledge of :

Usually requires almost no traditional CS

This is intellectually stimulating, rewarding, and challenging

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Test documentation : All parties participate

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Approximate Number of Personnel

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Types of Test Activities Summary

Automation Embed test values into executable scripts

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Applying Test Activities

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Model-Driven Test Design

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Model-Driven Test Design Steps

DESIGN ABSTRACTION LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION ABSTRACTION LEVEL

input values prefix postfix expected

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Model-Driven Test Design Activities

Software Testing Terms

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Important Terms Validation & Verification (IEEE)

IV&V stands for independent verification and validation

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Test Engineer & Test Managers

Test Manager : In charge of one or more test engineers

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Test Engineer Activities

Software Testing: A Newcomers Guide

Static and Dynamic Testing