1. Conformance Testing with State Mapping
Vadim Mutilin
ISP RAS

2. Conformance Testing Implementation Specification Sys M conforms-to?
Test suite
Test case T t *
Sys passes T
T is sound if Sys conforms-to M => Sys passes T
T is complete if Sys conforms-to M <=> Sys passes T

3. State Mappings MAPPINGS: SPECS×IMPLSFUNCS In practice:
f=MAPPINGS(M,Sys)
f:SSysSM
In practice:
Reading an implementation state
Converting it into a specification one

4. Example

5. Differences from FSM-based Testing
FSM vs. Labelled Transition System (LTS)
Equivalence vs. Conformance relation
Status message vs. State mapping

6. Test cases
ISO IS-9646 “OSI Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework”
OMG “UML Testing Profile”
Tretmans formalization:
Labelled transition system ‹S, L, T, s0›
Test case ‹St, L, Tt, ν, s0t›,
ν : St → {pass, fail} – verdict function.
Test run – synchronous parallel composition t||Sys (in initial state)

7. Composite Test Suites

8. Derived Test Suite T3=Derived(Te3)
Sys passes Te <=> Sys passes Derived(Te)

9. Time of Test Execution ρ(Te ) <= ρ(Derived(Te)) When <
In example ρ(Te3) = 20 <= ρ(T3) = 53
When <
Circles
Non-determination

10. Conclusions and Future Work
Theory
More efficient way of writing test suites
Practice
UniTESK formalized as FSM-based testing
Future
Conditions for test suite completeness

11. Thank you! Questions?
Vadim Mutilin (ISP RAS)