Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon free Investigation into the effectiveness of white-box T-way testing

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Received 16/08/2018, Accepted 09/09/2019, Revised 18/06/2019, Published 17/09/2019

An unduly large number of test cases are required for effective testing of programmes containing complex decision statements. In this context, modified condition/decision coverage (MC/DC) testing has been acknowledged to provide effective testing using a test suite whose size is linear in the number of the clauses present in a predicate. MC/DC testing is well-accepted and is mandated by several testing standards. T-way testing is another prominent testing technique that helps to limit the combinatorial explosion of black-box test cases. Its application to white-box testing promises to provide effective testing with a comparatively small number of test cases. The authors empirically investigate the effectiveness of MC/DC testing vis-à-vis white-box pairwise, 3-way and 4-way testing.

Inspec keywords: program testing

Other keywords: black-box test cases; program testing; white-box T-way testing; MC-DC testing; modified condition-decision coverage testing

Subjects: Diagnostic, testing, debugging and evaluating systems

References

    1. 1)
      • 14. Nie, C., Leung, H.: ‘A survey of combinatorial testing’, ACM Comput. Surv., 2011, 43, (2), pp. 1–29.
    2. 2)
      • 19. Bach, J.: ‘ALLPAIRS test case generation tool(version 1.2.1)’. Available at http://www.satisfice.com/tools/pairs.zip, accessed on January 2012.
    3. 3)
      • 9. Vilkomir, S., Starov, O., Bhambroo, R.: ‘Evaluation of T-way approach for testing logical expressions in software’. Proc. IEEE Sixth Int. Conf. Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW-2013), Luxembourg, 2013, pp. 249–256.
    4. 4)
      • 4. RTCA Inc.: ‘RTCA/DO-178B: software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification’ (Washington, D.C., 1992).
    5. 5)
      • 16. Hayhurst, K.J., Veerhusen, D.S., Chilenski, J.J., et al: ‘A practical tutorial on modified condition/decision coverage’. NASA/TM-2001-210876, 2001.
    6. 6)
      • 20. Williams, A.: ‘TConfig’. Available at http://www.site.uottawa.ca/awilliam/TConfig.jar, accessed on January 2012.
    7. 7)
      • 1. Mall, R.: ‘Fundamentals of software engineering’ (PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, India, 2018, 5th edn.).
    8. 8)
      • 10. Vilkomir, S., Anderson, D.: ‘Relationship between pairwise and MC/DC testing: initial experimental results’. Proc. Eighth Int. Conf. Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW-15), Graz, Austria, 2015, pp. 1–4.
    9. 9)
      • 15. Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Yueh, T., et al: ‘Fault class prioritization in boolean expressions’. Proc. 27th Annual ACM Symp. Applied Computing, Riva, Trento, Italy, 2012, pp. 1191–1196.
    10. 10)
      • 17. Kuhn, D.R.: ‘Fault classes and error detection capability of specification-based testing’, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 1999, 8, (4), pp. 411–424.
    11. 11)
      • 2. Sanchez, J.: ‘A review of pair-wise testing’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00288, 2016.
    12. 12)
      • 22. Available at https://github.com/Microsoft/pict, accessed 27th September 2019.
    13. 13)
      • 23. Available at http://cs.gmu.edu:8080/offutt/coverage/LogicCoverage, accessed 27th September 2019.
    14. 14)
      • 5. RTCA Inc.: ‘RTCA/DO-178C: software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification’ (Washington, D.C., 2011).
    15. 15)
      • 24. Leveson, N.G., Heimdahl, M.P.E., Hildreth, H., et al: ‘Requirements specification for process-control systems’, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 1994, 20, (9), pp. 684–707.
    16. 16)
      • 13. Lei, Y., Kacker, R., Kuhn, D.R., et al: ‘IPOG: a general strategy for T-way software testing’. Proc. 14th Annual IEEE Int. Conf. Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems ECBS'07, Tucson, AZ, USA, 2007, pp. 549–556.
    17. 17)
      • 12. Godboley, S., Dutta, A., Mohapatra, D.P., et al: ‘J3 model: a novel framework for improved modified condition/decision coverage analysis’, Comput. Stand. Interfaces, 2017, 50, (1), pp. 1–17.
    18. 18)
      • 7. Kim, J., Choi, K., Hoffman, D.M., et al: ‘White box pairwise test case generation’. Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Quality Software QSIC'07, Portland, OR, USA, 2007, pp. 286–291.
    19. 19)
      • 8. Ballance, W.A., Vilkomir, S., Jenkins, W.: ‘Effectiveness of pair-wise testing for software with boolean inputs’. Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST-2012), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012, pp. 580–586.
    20. 20)
      • 11. Godboley, S., Dutta, A., Mohapatra, D.P., et al: ‘Making a concolic tester achieve increased MC/DC’, Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng., 2016, 12, (4), pp. 319–332.
    21. 21)
      • 6. Czerwonka, J.: ‘Pairwise testing in real world’. Proc. 24th Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conf., Portland, Oregon, 2006, pp. 1–12.
    22. 22)
      • 18. Godboley, S., Dutta, A., Mohapatra, D.P., et al: ‘GECOJAP: a novel source code preprocessing technique to improve code coverage’, Comput. Stand. Interfaces, 2018, 55, (1), pp. 27–46.
    23. 23)
      • 21. Vilkomir, S., Alluri, A., Kuhn, R., et al: ‘Combinatorial and MC/DC coverage levels of random testing’. Proc. Int. Conf. Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C), Prague, Czech Republic, 2017, pp. 61–68.
    24. 24)
      • 3. Kuhn, R., Lei, Y., Kacker, R.: ‘Practical combinatorial testing: beyond pairwise’, IT Prof., 2008, 10, (3), pp. 19–23.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2018.5309
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2018.5309
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address