Engineering topics

Rajan, Ajitha

Publications and source records attributed to Rajan, Ajitha.

3 records

NASA NTRS2010

Coverage Metrics for Requirements-Based Testing: Evaluation of Effectiveness

In black-box testing, the tester creates a set of tests to exercise a system under test without regard to the internal structure of the system. Generally, no objective metric is used to measure the adequacy of black-box tests. In recent work, we have proposed three requirements coverage metrics, allowing testers to objectively measure the adequacy of a black-box test suite with respect to a set of requirements formalized as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) properties. In this report, we evaluate the effectiveness of these coverage metrics with respect to fault finding. Specifically, we conduct an empirical study to investigate two questions: (1) do test suites satisfying a requirements coverage metric provide better fault finding than randomly generated test suites of approximately the same size?, and (2) do test suites satisfying a more rigorous requirements coverage metric provide better fault finding than test suites satisfying a less rigorous requirements coverage metric? Our results indicate (1) only one coverage metric proposed -- Unique First Cause (UFC) coverage -- is sufficiently rigorous to ensure test suites satisfying the metric outperform randomly generated test suites of similar size and (2) that test suites satisfying more rigorous coverage metrics provide better fault finding than test suites satisfying less rigorous coverage metrics.

Staats, Matt↗

NASA NTRS2008

Assessing Requirements Quality through Requirements Coverage

In model-based development, the development effort is centered around a formal description of the proposed software system the model. This model is derived from some high-level requirements describing the expected behavior of the software. For validation and verification purposes, this model can then be subjected to various types of analysis, for example, completeness and consistency analysis [6], model checking [3], theorem proving [1], and test-case generation [4, 7]. This development paradigm is making rapid inroads in certain industries, e.g., automotive, avionics, space applications, and medical technology. This shift towards model-based development naturally leads to changes in the verification and validation (V&V) process. The model validation problem determining that the model accurately captures the customer's high-level requirements has received little attention and the sufficiency of the validation activities has been largely determined through ad-hoc methods. Since the model serves as the central artifact, its correctness with respect to the users needs is absolutely crucial. In our investigation, we attempt to answer the following two questions with respect to validation (1) Are the requirements sufficiently defined for the system? and (2) How well does the model implement the behaviors specified by the requirements? The second question can be addressed using formal verification. Nevertheless, the size and complexity of many industrial systems make formal verification infeasible even if we have a formal model and formalized requirements. Thus, presently, there is no objective way of answering these two questions. To this end, we propose an approach based on testing that, when given a set of formal requirements, explores the relationship between requirements-based structural test-adequacy coverage and model-based structural test-adequacy coverage. The proposed technique uses requirements coverage metrics defined in [9] on formal high-level software requirements and existing model coverage metrics such as the Modified Condition and Decision Coverage (MC/DC) used when testing highly critical software in the avionics industry [8]. Our work is related to Chockler et al. [2], but we base our work on traditional testing techniques as opposed to verification techniques.

Rajan, Ajitha↗

NASA NTRS2006

Testing Strategies for Model-Based Development

This report presents an approach for testing artifacts generated in a model-based development process. This approach divides the traditional testing process into two parts: requirements-based testing (validation testing) which determines whether the model implements the high-level requirements and model-based testing (conformance testing) which determines whether the code generated from a model is behaviorally equivalent to the model. The goals of the two processes differ significantly and this report explores suitable testing metrics and automation strategies for each. To support requirements-based testing, we define novel objective requirements coverage metrics similar to existing specification and code coverage metrics. For model-based testing, we briefly describe automation strategies and examine the fault-finding capability of different structural coverage metrics using tests automatically generated from the model.

Heimdahl, Mats P. E.↗