Akanksha Tiwari, Abhinav Singh


Age of satisfactory experiments is troublesome and costly, particularly to test programming frameworks whose info is basically mind boggling. This paper introduces an approach called information change to producing an extensive number of test information from a couple of seed test cases. It is enlivened by transformation testing strategies, however varies from them in the point and the way that change administrators are characterized and utilized. While change testing is a technique for measuring test ampleness, information transformation is a strategy for experiment age. In customary transformation testing, change administrators are utilized to change the program under test. Interestingly, change administrators in our approach are connected on input information to produce test cases, subsequently called information transformation administrators. The audit paper reports a contextual investigation with the technique on testing a robotized demonstrating instrument to delineate the appropriateness of the proposed strategy. Investigation information unmistakably exhibit that the strategy is satisfactory and practical, and ready to distinguish a vast extent of issues. Transformation investigation is a productive strategy to assess the nature of test information, and has been widely contemplated both for procedural and question situated dialects. In this survey paper, we examine how it can be adjusted to display arranged programming. Since no model change dialect has been broadly acknowledged today, we propose non specific blame models that are identified with the model change process. To begin with, we distinguish unique operations that constitute this procedure: display route, model's components separating, yield show creation and information demonstrate alteration. At that point, we propose an arrangement of particular change administrators which are specifically roused from these operations. We trust that these administrators are significant since a huge piece of the blunders in a change are because of the control of complex models paying little respect to the solid usage dialect.




structurally complex, mutation, faults.

Full Text:



Voas, J.M. and K. Miller, The Revealing Power of a Test Case. Software Testing,Verification and Reliability, 1992.2(1): p. 25 - 42.

Offutt, A.J., J. Pan, K. Tewary, and T. Zhang, An experimental evaluation of data flowand mutation testing. Software Practice and Experience, 1996.26(2).

DeMillo, R., R. Lipton, and F. Sayward, Hints on Test Data Selection : Help For The

Practicing Programmer.IEEE Computer, 1978. 11(4): p. 34 - 41.

King, J. (1975) A new approach to program testing. Proc. Int.Conf. Reliable Software, Los Angeles, CA, USA, April 21–23,pp. 228–233. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Clarke, L. (1976) A system to generate test data andsymbolically execute programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.,SE-2, 215–222.

Howden, W. E. (1977) Symbolic testing and the DISSECTsymbolic evaluation system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., SE-3,266–278.

Howden, W. E. (1978) An evaluation of the effectiveness ofsymbolic testing. Softw.Pract. Exp., 8, 381–397.

Korel, B. (1990) Automated software test data generation. IEEETrans. Softw. Eng., SE-16, 870–879.

Beydeda, S. and Gruhn, V. (2003) BINTEST—binarysearch-based test case generation. Proc. 27th Int. ComputerSoftware and Applications Conf. (COMPSAC’03), Dallas, TX,USA, November 3–6, pp. 28–33. IEEE Computer Society,Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Gupta, N., Mathur, A. P. and Soffa, M. L. (2000) GeneratingTest Data for Branch Coverage. Proc. 15th IEEE Int. Conf.Automated Software Engineering (ASE’00), Grenoble, France,September 11–15, pp. 219–228. IEEE Computer SocietyPress, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Pargas, R. P., Harrold, M. J. and Peck, R. R. (1999) Test-datageneration using genetic algorithms. Softw. Test. Verif.Reliab., 9, 263–282.

DeMillo, R. A., Guindi, D. S., McCracken, W. M., Offutt, A. J.and King, K. N. (1988) An extended overview of the Mothrasoftware testing environment. Proc. 2nd Workshop onSoftware Testing, Verification and Analysis, Banff, Canada,July 19–21, pp. 142–151.IEEE Computer Society,Washington, DC, USA.

DeMillo, R. A. and Offutt, A. J. (1991) Constraint-basedautomatic test data generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.,SE-17, 900–909.

DeMillo, R. A. and Offutt, A. J. (1993) Experimental resultsfrom an automatic test case generator. ACM Trans. Softw.Eng. Methodol., 2, 109–127.

McMinn, P. (2004) Search-based software test data generation:a survey. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab., 14, 105–156.

McMinn, P. and Holcombe, M. (2003) The state problem forevolutionary testing. Proc. Genetic and EvolutionaryComputation Conf. (GECCO’03), Chicago, IL, USA, July12–16, pp. 2488–2497. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Zhu, H., Hall, P. and May, J. (1997) Software unit test coverageand adequacy. ACM Comput.Surv., 29, 366–427.

Tai, K.-C. (1993) Predicate-based test generation for computerprograms. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Software Engineering(ICSE’93), Baltimore, MD, USA, May 17–21, pp. 267–276.IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Stocks, P. A. and Carrington, D. A. (1993) Test templates: aspecification-based testing framework. Proc. 15th Int. Conf.Software Engineering (ICSE’93), Baltimore, MD, USA, May17–21, pp. 405–414. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos,CA, USA.

Ammann, P. and Offutt, J. (1994) Using formal methods toderive test frames in category-partition testing. Proc. 9thIEEE Annual Conf. Computer Assurance (COMPASS’94),Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 27 June–1 July, pp. 69–80. IEEEComputer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Denney, R. (1991) Test-case generation from Prolog-basedspecifications. IEEE Softw., 8, 49–57.

Bouge, L., Choquet, N., Fribourg, L. and Gaudel, M.-C. (1986)Test set generation from algebraic specifications using logicprogramming. J. Syst. Softw., 6, 343–360.

Doong, R. K. and Frankl, P. G. (1994) The ASTOOT approachto testing object-oriented programs. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng.Methodol., 3, 101–130.

Chen, H. Y., Tse, T. H. and Chen, T. Y. (2001) TACCLE: amethodology for object-oriented software testing at the classand cluster levels. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 10,56–109.

Fujiwara, S., Bochmann, G., Khendek, F., Amalou, M.and Ghedamsi, A. (1991) Test selection based on finite statemodels. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., SE-17, 591–603.

Lee, D. and Yannakakis, M. (1996) Principles and methods oftesting finite state machines—a survey. Proc. IEEE, 84,1090–1123.

Hierons, R. M. (2001) Checking states and transitions of a set ofcommunicating finite state machines. Microprocess.Microsyst.,24, 443–452.

Morasca, S. and Pezze, M. (eds) (1990) Using High-Level PetriNets for Testing Concurrent and Real-Time Systems. NorthHolland, Amsterdam.

Zhu, H. and He, X. (2002) A methodology of testing high-levelPetri nets. Inf. Softw. Technol., 44, 473–489.

Zhu, H., Jin, L. and Diaper, D. (1999) Application of taskanalysis to the validation of software requirements. Proc. 11thInt. Conf. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering(SEKE’99), Kaiserslautern, Germany, June 16–19, pp. 239–245.Knowledge Systems Institute, Skokie, IL, USA.

Zhu, H., Jin, L. and Diaper, D. (2002) Software requirementsvalidation via task analysis. J. Syst. Softw., 61, 145–169.

Hartman, A. and Nagin, K. (2004) The AGEDIS tools for modelbased testing. Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Int. Symp. Software Testingand Analysis (ISSTA’04), Boston, MA, USA, July 11–14,pp. 129–132. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Offutt, J. and Abdurazik, A. (2000) Using UML collaborationdiagrams for static checking and test generation. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Unified Modelling Language (UML’00), York, UK,October 2–6, pp. 383–395. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Tahat, L. H., Bader, A. J., Vaysburg, B. and Korel, B. (2001)Requirement-based automated black-box test generation.Proc. 25th Int. Computer Software and Applications Conf.(COMPSAC’01), Chicago, IL, USA, October 8–12, pp. 489–495.IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Vaysburg, B., Tahat, L. H. and Korel, B. (2002) Dependenceanalysis in reduction of requirement based test suites. Proc.ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium Software Testingand Analysis (ISSTA’02), Roma, Italy, July 22–24, pp. 107–111. ACM New York, NY, USA.

Li, S., Wang, J. and Qi, Z.-C. (2004) Property-oriented testgeneration from UML statecharts. Proc. 19th Int. Conf.Automated Software Engineering (ASE’04), Linz, Austria,September 20–25, pp. 122–131. IEEE Computer Society, LosAlamitos, CA, USA.

Li, S., Wang, J., Wang, X. and Qi, Z.-C. (2005)Configuration-oriented symbolic test sequence constructionmethod for EFSM. Proc. 29th Annual International ComputerSoftware and Applications Conf. (COMPSAC’05), Edinburgh,Scotland, UK, July 25–28, pp. 13–18. IEEE ComputerSociety, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Pretschner, A. (2005) Model-based testing (Tutorial Abstract).Proc. 27th Int Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE’05),St. Louis, MO, USA, May 15–21, pp. 722–723. ACM,New York, NY, USA.

Pretschner, A., Prenninger, W., Wagner, S., Ku¨hnel, C.,Baumgartner, M., Sostawa, B., Zo¨lch, R. and Stauner, T.(2005) One evaluation of model-based testing and itsautomation.Proc 27th IntConf Software Engineering(ICSE’05), St. Louis, Mo, USA, May 15–21, pp. 392–401,New York, NY, USA.

Heimdahl, M. P. E. (2005) Model-based testing: challengesahead (Panel Discussion Position paper). Proc. 29th AnnualInt. Computer Software and Applications Conf.(COMPSAC’05), Edinburgh, Scotlands, UK, July 25–28,

pp. 330. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Harrold, M. J., Offutt, J. A. and Tewary, K. (1997) An approachto fault modelling and fault seeding using the programdependence graph. J. Syst. Softw., 36, 273–296.

Meek, B. and Siu, K. K. (1989) The effective of error seeding.SIGPLANNot., 24, 81–89.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26483/ijarcs.v9i0.6128


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science