SATEL
Semi Automatic TEsting Language
University of Geneva
Levi Lúcio, Didier Buchs
M-TOOS, Portland 3/18/2016
Presentation Plan





CO-OPN and testing;
Semi-automatic test selection;
Concepts of SATEL;
How do we find tests with SATEL;
Conclusions.
Portland, 3/18/2016
2
Presentation Plan





CO-OPN and testing;
Semi-automatic test selection;
Concepts of SATEL;
How do we find tests with SATEL;
Conclusions.
Portland, 3/18/2016
3
CO-OPN Specification Language
Method
Gate
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Algebraic Data
Petri Net
Type (ADT) CO-OPN Class Account
(extended)
Portland, 3/18/2016
4
Transactional Semantics and
Concurrency
Concurrency is automatically
managed by Petri Nets…
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
A transaction is either possible or
the state of the system is not changed!
Synchronization operators: Sim (//), Seq (..), Alt (+)
Portland, 3/18/2016
5
Quic kTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompress or
are needed to see this pic ture.
CO-OPN Specs as Models
for Testing

CO-OPN specs may be seen as reactive
systems:



Stimulations: method events
Observations: method success and gate events (may
be absent…)
We can extend these notions to:


Stimulations: simple or synchronized method events
Observations: simple or synchronized gate events
Portland, 3/18/2016
6
Test Representation

A Test is a graph of Stimulation / Observation
pairs with a truth value;

The graphs are expressed in Hennessy-Milner
(HML) temporal logic:



Sequence
Negation
Conjunction
Portland, 3/18/2016
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
7
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Presentation Plan





CO-OPN and testing;
Semi-automatic test selection;
Concepts of SATEL;
How do we find tests with SATEL;
Conclusions.
Portland, 3/18/2016
8
Why is our Test Selection
Semi-Automatic?

The test engineer employs her semantic
knowledge of the SUT to manually:

Select execution paths to test (HML formulas);
Select the shape of stimulation/observation
synchronizations;

Constrain parameters of stimulation/observation pairs.


… and automatically find method
parameters that correspond to equivalence
classes of the method’s behavior
Portland, 3/18/2016
9
Test Selection Process
“Automatic” selection
“Manual” selection
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Portland, 3/18/2016
10
Presentation Plan





CO-OPN and testing;
Semi-automatic test selection;
Concepts of SATEL;
How do we find tests with SATEL;
Conclusions.
Portland, 3/18/2016
11
What are Test Intentions?
3x
Test Intention 2
A test intention selects
a part of the model’s
transition system and
abstracts it…
Test Intention 1
Portland, 3/18/2016
12
Writing Test Intentions

A SATEL test intention is defined by axioms
with constrained variables:

Parameters of methods or gates





ADT types or Class types
Stimulations
Observations
HML formulas
A test intention “produces” a test set!
Portland, 3/18/2016
13
Language Features

Test intentions described by axioms
with constraints over variables;

Recursion for describing repetitive
paths in the labeled transition system;

Reuse of test intentions for test
composition.
Portland, 3/18/2016
14
Axiom Structure


hmlFormula in intention
cond1 & cond2 & … condn => hmlFormula in intention
Variables
obs : observation
usr : username (ADT)
Axioms
NonAlgebraic
constrained
variables
condition
Select one
valuepossible
for “usr”values
per
assume
all their
constraining
the usr variable
Behavior of the login operation
=> = true =>
(usrsubUniformity(usr)
into jean::luc::[])
HML(<loginUser(usr)
with with
obs>obs>
T> in
login
;
HML(<login(usr)
in
HML(<loginUser(usr)
with
obs>
T) login;
in login;
Portland, 3/18/2016
15
All constraints over variables
ADT
Algebraic conditions
defined by term
equalities
uniformity
subuniformity
Class Types
Observations / Stimulations
Equalities
between object onlySimultaneity
identifiers
uniformity
subuniformity
HML Formulas
bool
depth
int
onlySequence
bool
int
onlyAlternative
bool
simpleEvent
nbSynchronizations
bool
int
nbEvents
nbOccurrences
(of a method)
sequence
positive
trace
onlyConstructor
onlyMutator
onlyObserver
uniformity
subuniformity
uniformity
subuniformity
“Automatic” constraining predicate
Portland, 3/18/2016
16
int
bool
bool
bool
bool
bool
bool
Presentation Plan





CO-OPN and testing;
Semi-automatic test selection;
Concepts of SATEL;
How do we find tests with SATEL;
Conclusions.
Portland, 3/18/2016
17
How to find tests
For each test intention:
For each axiom find the set of variable
substitutions that makes the condition true
1.

2.
Except variables marked with subuniformity
Generate per axiom a set of partially
instantiated HML formulas
Portland, 3/18/2016
18
How do we find tests (2)
3.
Validate the partially instantiated tests through the
Spec’s transition system to find values for the
remaining variables…
withdraw(m):(b >= m) => balance b -> balance bm
Algebraic
condition
allowing
the on
Appying
a subuniformity
Petri
net
predicate
pre-condition
Petri
netmpost-condition
implies at each
method to
fire
fire of the withdraw
calculating
one m for each equation:
(b >= m) = true
(b >= m) = false
Portland, 3/18/2016
Calculated through logic programming…
19
Presentation Plan





CO-OPN and testing;
Semi-automatic test selection;
Concepts of SATEL;
How do we find tests with SATEL;
Conclusions.
Portland, 3/18/2016
20
Conclusions




The technique allows model based test
generation;
The test engineer specifies customized
reusable test intentions;
Abstractions from the transition system
are performed automatically!
Work in progress…
Portland, 3/18/2016
21
Recursive Axioms and
Test Intention Reuse

Several axioms may exist for one test intention
and they may be recursive:
Variables
f : HML
[] in nWrongPins;
Base case for the recursion
Recursive
definition
(empty test
intention)
f in nWrongPins => f . HML(<login(newUser(mario))
with errorLogin> T) in nWrongPins;

Axioms may be reused in other test intentions:
f in nWrongPins & nbEvents(f) < 4 => f in 4LessWrongPins
Test intention
Condition
reuse
over HML formula
Portland, 3/18/2016
22
“Automatic” Constraints
subUniformity(usr) =>
HML(<login(usr) with obs> in login;

During the transition induced by the “login” method select one
value for “usr” per behavior of the login operation;

This depends on the behavioral axioms defining the method!
Portland, 3/18/2016
23