1 of 66

Compiled with reference from:

Software Testing Techniques: Boris Beizer

Craft of Software Testing: Brain Marrick

_{Unit 2}

2 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

2

We will see in Unit 2:

Concepts of path testing

Predicates

Path predicates and Achievable paths

Path Sensitizing

Path Instrumentation

Applications of path testing

In addition we have also,

Control flow graphs, flowcharts

Testing when program contains iterative loop statements.

_U2

3 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

3

Path Testing Definition

A family of structural test techniques based on judiciously selecting a set of test paths through the programs.

Goal: Pick enough paths to assure that every source statement is executed at least once.

It is a measure of thoroughness of code coverage.

It is used most for unit testing on new software.

Its effectiveness reduces as the software size increases.

We use Path testing techniques indirectly.

Path testing concepts are used in and along with other testing techniques

Code Coverage: During unit testing: # stmts executed at least once / total # stmts

_U2

4 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

4

Path Testing contd..

Assumptions:

Software takes a different path than intended due to some error.

Specifications are correct and achievable.

Processing bugs are only in control flow statements

Data definition & access are correct

Observations

Structured programming languages need less of path testing.

Assembly language, Cobol, Fortran, Basic & similar languages make path testing necessary.

_U2

5 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

5

Control Flow Graph

A simplified, abstract, and graphical representation of a program’s control structure using process blocks, decisions and junctions.

_U2

_{Do Process A}

_{Process Block}

_Decisions

_Junctions

_{Case Statement}

_IF

_{A = B ?}

_{NO: ELSE DO}

_{YES: THEN DO}

₁

₂

₁

_CASE-OF

₂

_N

_{CASE 1}

_{CASE 2}

_{CASE N}

_{Control Flow Graph Elements}

6 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

6

Control Flow Graph Elements:

Process Block:

A sequence of program statements uninterrupted by decisions or junctions with a single entry and single exit.

Junction:

A point in the program where control flow can merge (into a node of the graph)
Examples: target of GOTO, Jump, Continue

Decisions:

A program point at which the control flow can diverge (based on evaluation of a condition).
Examples: IF stmt. Conditional branch and Jump instruction.

Case Statements:

A Multi-way branch or decision.
Examples: In assembly language: jump addresses table, Multiple GOTOs, Case/Switch

For test design, Case statement and decision are similar.

_U2

7 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

7

Control Flow Graph Vs Flow Charts

_U2

Control Flow Graph	Flow Chart
Compact representation of the program	Usually a multi-page description
Focuses on Inputs, Outputs, and the control flow into and out of the block.	Focuses on the process steps inside
Inside details of a process block are not shown	Every part of the process block are drawn

8 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

8

_U2

Creation of Control Flow Graph from a program

One statement to one element translation to get a Classical Flow chart
Add additional labels as needed
Merge process steps
A process box is implied on every junction and decision
Remove External Labels
Represent the contents of elements by numbers.
We have now Nodes and Links

INPUT X, Y

Z := X + Y

V := X - Y

IF Z >= 0 GOTO SAM

JOE: Z := Z + V

SAM: Z := Z - V

FOR N = 0 TO V

Z := Z - 1

NEXT N

END

_{INPUT X, Y}

_{Z >= 0 ?}

_{Z := X + Y}

_{V := X - Y}

_{Z := Z - V}

_{Z := Z + V}

_SAM

_JOE

_NO

_{N := 0}

_{Z := Z - 1}

_LOOP

_{N = V ?}

_NO

_YES

_END

_{One to One Flow Chart}

_{N := N+1}

9 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

9

_U2

Creation of Control Flow Graph from a program

One statement to one element translation to get a Classical Flow chart
Add additional labels as needed
Merge process steps
A process box is implied on every junction and decision
Remove External Labels
Represent the contents of elements by numbers.
We have now Nodes and Links

INPUT X, Y

Z := X + Y

V := X - Y

IF Z >= 0 GOTO SAM

JOE: Z := Z + V

SAM: Z := Z - V

FOR N = 0 TO V

Z := Z - 1

NEXT N

END

_{Simplified Flow Graph}

_{Z >= 0 ?}

_P1

_P3

_P2

_SAM

_JOE

_NO

_P4

_LOOP

_{N = V ?}

_NO

_YES

_END

_P5

10 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

10

_U2

Creation of Control Flow Graph from a program

One statement to one element translation to get a Classical Flow chart
Add additional labels as needed
Merge process steps
A process box is implied on every junction and decision
Remove External Labels
Represent the contents of elements by numbers.
We have now Nodes and Links

INPUT X, Y

Z := X + Y

V := X - Y

IF Z >= 0 GOTO SAM

JOE: Z := Z + V

SAM: Z := Z - V

FOR N = 0 TO V

Z := Z - 1

NEXT N

END

_{Simplified Flow Graph}

₁

₂

₃

₄

₅

₆

₇

11 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

Linked List Notation of a Control Flow Graph

Node Processing, label, Decision Next-Node

1 (BEGIN; INPUT X, Y; Z := X+Y ; V := X-Y) : 2

2 ( Z >= 0 ? ) : 4 (TRUE)

: 3 (FALSE)

3 (JOE: Z := Z + V) : 4

4 (SAM: Z := Z – V; N := 0) : 5

5 (LOOP; Z := Z -1) : 6

6 (N = V ?) : 7 (FALSE)

: END (TRUE)

7 (N := N + 1) : 5

ref boris beizer

11

_U2

₁

₂

₃

₄

₅

₆

₇

12 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

12

Path Testing Concepts

Path is a sequence of statements starting at an entry, junction or decision and ending at another, or possibly the same junction or decision or an exit point.

Link is a single process (block) in between two nodes.

Node is a junction or decision.

Segment is a sequence of links. A path consists of many segments.

Path segment is a succession of consecutive links that belongs to the same path. (3,4,5)

Length of a path is measured by # of links in the path or # of nodes traversed.

Name of a path is the set of the names of the nodes along the path. (1,2,3 4,5, 6)

(1,2,3,4, 5,6,7, 5,6,7, 5,6)

Path-Testing Path is an “entry to exit” path through a processing block.

_U2

13 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

13

Path Testing Concepts..

Entry / Exit for a routines, process blocks and nodes.

Single entry and single exit routines are preferable.

Called well-formed routines.

Formal basis for testing exists.

Tools could generate test cases.

_U2

14 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

14

Path Testing Concepts..

Multi-entry / Multi-exit routines: (ill-formed)

A Weak approach: Hence, convert it to single-entry / single-exit routine.

Integration issues:

Large # of inter-process interfaces. Creates problem in Integration.

More # test cases and also a formal treatment is more difficult.

Theoretical and tools based issues

A good formal basis does not exist.
Tools may fail to generate important test cases.

_U2

Multi-

entry

routine

Multi-

Exit

Routine

Valid only for x

Valid for x or y

Valid only for Y

Called by x, y

Valid for caller A, B

Valid for caller A

Valid for caller B, C

15 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

15

Path Testing Concepts contd..

Convert a multi-entry / exit routine to a single entry / exit routine:

Use an entry parameter and a case statement at the entry => single-entry

Merge all exits to Single-exit point after setting one exit parameter to a value.

_U2

Begin N

Begin

Begin 1

₁

₂

_N

Begin 2

Case

Exit N

Exit 1

Exit 2

₁

₂

_N

SET E = 1

16 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

16

Path Testing Concepts contd..

Test Strategy for Multi-entry / exit routines

Get rid of them.
Control those you cannot get rid of.

Convert to single entry / exit routines.
Do unit testing by treating each entry/exit combination as if it were a completely different routine.

Recognize that integration testing is heavier
Understand the strategies & assumptions in the automatic test generators and confirm that they do (or do not) work for multi-entry/multi exit routines.

_U2

17 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

17

Path Testing Concepts

Fundamental Path Selection Criteria

A minimal set of paths to be able to do complete testing.

Each pass through a routine from entry to exit, as one traces through it, is a potential path.

The above includes the tracing of 1..n times tracing of an interactive block each separately.

Note: A bug could make a mandatory path not executable or could create new paths not related to processing.

_U2

Complete Path Testing prescriptions:

Exercise every path from entry to exit.
Exercise every statement or instruction at least once.
Exercise every branch and case statement in each direction, at least once.

♦ Point 1 => point 2 and 3. ♦ Point 2 & 3 are not the same

♦ Point 1 is impractical. ♦ For a structured language, Point 3 => Point 2

18 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

18

Path Testing Concepts

Path Testing Criteria :

Path Testing (P_∝ ):

Execute all possible control flow paths thru the program; but typically restricted to entry-exit paths.

Implies 100% path coverage. Impossible to achieve.

Statement Testing ( P₁) :

Execute all statements in the program at least once under the some test.

100% statement coverage => 100% node coverage.

Denoted by C1

C1 is a minimum testing requirement in the IEEE unit test standard: ANSI 87B.

Branch Testing (P₂) :

Execute enough tests to assure that every branch alternative has been exercised at least once under some test.

Denoted by C2

Objective: 100% branch coverage and 100% Link coverage.

For well structured software, branch testing & coverage include statement coverage

_U2

19 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

19

Picking enough (the fewest) paths for achieving C1+C2

_U2

_{Z >= 0 ?}

_P1

_SAM

_NO

_LOOP

_{N = V ?}

_NO

_YES

_END

₂

_b

_a

₁

_c

_e

_f

_g

_d

₅

₄

₃

₆

Paths	Decisions		Process-link
	2	5	a	b	c	d	e	f	g
abdeg	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y	Y		Y
acdeg	No	Y	Y		Y	Y	Y		Y
abdefeg	Y	N	Y	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y
acdefeg	No	Y	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

_{Does every decision have Y & N (C2)?}
_{Are call cases of case statement marked (C2)?}
_{Is every three way branch covered (C2)?}
_{Is every link covered at least once (C1)?}

_{Make small changes in the path changing only 1 link or node at a time.}

20 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

20

Revised path selection Rules

Pick the simplest and functionally sensible entry/exit path

Pick additional paths as small variations from previous paths. (pick those with no loops, shorter paths, simple and meaningful)

Pick additional paths but without an obvious functional meaning (only to achieve C1+C2 coverage).

Be comfortable with the chosen paths. play hunches, use intuition to achieve C1+C2

Don’t follow rules slavishly – except for coverage

_U2

21 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

21

Testing of Paths involving loops

Bugs in iterative statements apparently are not discovered by C1+C2.

But by testing at the boundaries of loop variable.

Types of Iterative statements

Single loop statement.

Nested loops.

Concatenated Loops.

Horrible Loops

Let us denote the Minimum # of iterations by n_min

the Maximum # of iterations by n_max

the value of loop control variable by V

the #of test cases by T

the # of iterations carried out by n

Later, we analyze the Loop-Testing times

_U2

22 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

22

Testing of path involving loops…

Testing a Single Loop Statement (three cases)

Case 1. n_min = 0, n_max = N, no excluded values

1. Bypass the loop.

If you can’t, there is a bug, n_min ≠ 0 or a wrong case.

2. Could the value of loop (control) variable V be negative?

could it appear to specify a –ve n ?

3. Try one pass through the loop statement: n = 1

4. Try two passes through the loop statement: n = 2

To detect initialization data flow anomalies:

Variable defined & not used in the loop, or

Initialized in the loop & used outside the loop.

5. Try n = typical number of iterations : n_min < n < n_max

6. Try n = n_max -1

7. Try n = n_max

8. Try n = n_max + 1.

What prevents V (& n) from having this value?

What happens if it is forced?

_U2

2

1

23 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

23

Testing of path involving loops…

Case 2. n_min = +ve, n_max = N, no excluded values

1. Try n_min - 1

Could the value of loop (control) variable V be < n_min?

What prevents that ?

2. Try n_min

3. Try n_min + 1

4. Once, unless covered by a previous test.

5. Twice, unless covered by a previous test.

4. Try n = typical number of iterations : n_min < n < n_max

5. Try n = n_max -1

6. Try n = n_max

7. Try n = n_max + 1.

What prevents V (& n) from having this value?

What happens if it is forced?

Note: only a case of no iterations, n = 0 is not there.

_U2

2

1

24 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

24

Path Testing Concepts…

Case 3. Single loop with excluded values

1. Treat this as single loops with excluded values as two sets.

2. Example:

V = 1 to 20 excluding 7,8,9 and10

Test cases to attempt are for:

V = 0,1,2,4,6,7 and V = 10,11,15,19,20,21

(underlined cased are not supposed to work)

_U2

2

1

25 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

25

Testing of path involving loops…

Testing a Nested Loop Statement

Multiplying # of tests for each nested loop => very large # of tests

A test selection technique:

Start at the inner-most loop. Set all outer-loops to Min iteration parameter values: V_min.
Test the V_min, V_min + 1, typical V, V_max - 1, V_max for the inner-most loop. Hold the outer-loops to V_min_. Expand tests are required for out-of-range & excluded values.

If you have done with outer most loop, Go To step 5. Else, move out one loop and do step 2 with all other loops set to typical values.
Do the five cases for all loops in the nest simultaneously.

Assignment: check # test cases = 12 for nesting = 2, 16 for 3, 19 for 4.

_U2

3

2

4

1

26 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

26

Testing of path involving loops…

Compromise on # test cases for processing time.

Expand tests for solving potential problems associated with initialization of variables and with excluded combinations and ranges.

Apply Huang’s twice thorough theorem to catch data initialization problems.

_U2

3

2

4

1

27 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

27

Testing of path involving loops…

Testing Concatenated Loop Statements

Two loops are concatenated if it’s possible to reach one after exiting the other while still on the path from entrance to exit.

If these are independent of each other, treat them as independent loops.

If their iteration values are inter-dependent & these are same path, treat these like a nested loop.

Processing times are additive.

_U2

4

3

2

1

28 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

28

Testing of path involving loops…

Testing Horrible Loops

Avoid these.

Even after applying some techniques of paths, resulting test cases not definitive.

Too many test cases.

Thinking required to check end points etc. is unique for each program.

Jumps in & out of loops and intersecting loops etc, makes test case selection an ugly task.

etc. etc.

_U2

5

4

3

2

1

6

29 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

29

Testing of path involving loops…

Loop Testing Times

Longer testing time for all loops if all the extreme cases are to be tested.

Unreasonably long test execution times indicate bugs in the s/w or specs.

Case: Testing nested loops with combination of extreme values leads to long test times.

Show that it’s due to incorrect specs and fix the specs.
Prove that combined extreme cases cannot occur in the real world. Cut-off those tests.

Put in limits and checks to prevent the combined extreme cases.
Test with the extreme-value combinations, but use different numbers.

The test time problem is solved by rescaling the test limit values.

Can be achieved through a separate compile, by patching, by setting parameter values etc..

_U2

30 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

30

Effectiveness of Path Testing

Path testing (with mainly P1 & P2) catches ~65% of Unit Test Bugs ie., ~35% of all bugs.

More effective for unstructured than structured software.

Limitations

Path testing may not do expected coverage if bugs occur.

Path testing may not reveal totally wrong or missing functions.

Unit-level path testing may not catch interface errors among routines.

Data base and data flow errors may not be caught.

Unit-level path testing cannot reveal bugs in a routine due to another.

Not all initialization errors are caught by path testing.

Specification errors cannot be caught.

_U2

31 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

31

Effectiveness of Path Testing

A lot of work

Creating flow graph, selecting paths for coverage, finding input data values to force these paths, setting up loop cases & combinations.

Careful, systematic, test design will catch as many bugs as the act of testing.

Test design process at all levels at least as effective at catching bugs as is running the test designed by that process.

More complicated path testing techniques than P1 & P2

Between P₂ & P_α

Complicated & impractical

Weaker than P1 or P2.

For regression (incremental) testing, it’s cost-effective

_U2

32 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

32

Predicates, Predicate Expressions

Path

A sequence of process links (& nodes)

Predicate

The logical function evaluated at a decision : True or False. (Binary , boolean)

Compound Predicate

Two or more predicates combined with AND, OR etc.

Path Predicate

Every path corresponds to a succession of True/False values for the predicates traversed on that path.

A predicate associated with a path.

“ X > 0 is True “ AND “W is either negative or equal to 122” is True

Multi-valued Logic / Multi-way branching

_U2

33 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

33

Predicates, Predicate Expressions…

Predicate Interpretation

The symbolic substitution of operations along the path in order to express the predicate solely in terms of the input vector is called predicate interpretation.

An input vector is a set of inputs to a routine arranged as a one dimensional array.

Example:

INPUT X, Y INPUT X

ON X GOTO A, B, C IF X < 0 THEN Y:= 2

A: Z := 7 @ GOTO H ELSE Y := 1

B: Z := -7 @ GOTO H IF X + Y*Y > 0 THEN …

C: Z := 0 @ GOTO H

H: DO SOMETHING

K: IF X + Z > 0 GOTO GOOD ELSE GOTO BETTER

Predicate interpretation may or may not depend on the path. IF -7 > 3 ..

Path predicates are the specific form of the predicates of the decisions along the selected path after interpretation.

_U2

34 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

34

Predicates, Predicate Expressions…

Process Dependency

An input variable is independent of the processing if its value does not change as a result of processing.

An input variable is process dependent if its value changes as a result of processing.

A predicate is process dependent if its truth value can change as a result of processing.

A predicate is process independent if its truth value does not change as a result of processing.

Process dependence of a predicate doesn’t follow from process dependence of variables

Examples: X + Y = 10 Increment X & Decrement Y.

X is odd Add an even # to X

If all the input variables (on which a predicate is based) are process independent, then predicate is process independent.

_U2

35 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

35

Predicates, Predicate Expressions…

Correlation

Two input variables are correlated if every combination of their values cannot be specified independently.

Variables whose values can be specified independently without restriction are uncorrelated.

A pair of predicates whose outcomes depend on one or more variables in common are correlated predicates.

Every path through a routine is achievable only if all predicates in that routine are uncorrelated.

If a routine has a loop, then at least one decision’s predicate must be process dependent. Otherwise, there is an input value which the routine loops indefinitely.

_U2

36 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

36

Predicates, Predicate Expressions…

Path Predicate Expression

Every selected path leads to an associated boolean expression, called the path predicate expression, which characterizes the input values (if any) that will cause that path to be traversed.

Select an entry/exit path. Write down un-interpreted predicates for the decisions along the path. If there are iterations, note also the value of loop-control variable for that pass. Converting these into predicates that contain only input variables, we get a set of boolean expressions called path predicate expression.

Example (inputs being numerical values):

If X ₅ > 0 .OR. X ₆ < 0 then

X₁ + 3X₂ + 17 >= 0

X₃ = 17

X₄ – X₁ >= 14 X₂

_U2

37 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

37

Predicates, Predicate Expressions…

A: X ₅ > 0 E: X ₆ < 0

B: X₁ + 3X₂ + 17 >= 0 F: X₁ + 3X₂ + 17 >= 0

C: X₃ = 17 G: X₃ = 17

D: X₄ – X₁ >= 14 X₂ H: X₄ – X₁ >= 14 X₂

Converting into the predicate expression form:

A B C D + E B C D ⇒ ( A + E ) B C D

If we take the alternative path for the expression: D then

(A + E ) B C D

_U2

38 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

38

Predicates, Predicate Expressions…

Predicate Coverage:

Look at examples & possibility of bugs: A B C D A + B + C + D

Due to semantics of the evaluation of logic expressions in the languages, the entire expression may not be always evaluated.

A bug may not be detected.
A wrong path may be taken if there is a bug.

Realize that on our achieving C2, the program could still hide some control flow bugs.

Predicate coverage:

If all possible combinations of truth values corresponding to selected path have been explored under some test, we say predicate coverage has been achieved.

Stronger than branch coverage.

If all possible combinations of all predicates under all interpretations are covered, we have the equivalent of total path testing.

_U2

39 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

39

Testing blindness

coming to the right path – even thru a wrong decision (at a predicate). Due to the

interaction of some statements makes a buggy predicate work, and

the bug is not detected by the selected input values.

calculating wrong number of tests at a predicate

by ignoring the # of paths to arrive at it.

Cannot be detected by path testing and need other strategies

_U2

40 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

40

Testing blindness

Assignment blinding: A buggy Predicate seems to work correctly as the specific value chosen in an assignment statement works with both the correct & buggy predicate.

Correct Buggy

X := 7 X := 7

IF Y > 0 THEN … IF X + Y > 0 THEN … (check for Y=1)

Equality blinding:

When the path selected by a prior predicate results in a value that works both for the correct & buggy predicate.

Correct Buggy

IF Y = 2 THEN … IF Y = 2 THEN ..

IF X + Y > 3 THEN … IF X > 1 THEN … (check for any X>1)

Self-blinding

When a buggy predicate is a multiple of the correct one and the result is indistinguishable along that path.

Correct Buggy

X := A X := A

IF X - 1 > 0 THEN … IF X + A -2 > 0 THEN … (check for any X,A)

_U2

41 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

41

Achievable Paths

Objective is to select & test just enough paths to achieve a satisfactory notion of test completeness such as C1 + C2.

Extract the program’s control flow graph & select a set of tentative covering paths.

For a path in that set, interpret the predicates.

Trace the path through, multiplying the individual compound predicates to achieve a boolean expression. Example: (A + BC) ( D + E)

Multiply & obtain sum-of-products form of the path predicate expression:

AD + AE + BCD + BCE

Each product term denotes a set of inequalities that, if solved, will yield an input vector that will drive the routine along the selected path.

A set of input values for that path is found when any of the inequality sets is solved.

A solution found => path is achievable. Otherwise the path is unachievable.

_U2

42 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

42

Path Sensitization

_U2

Heuristic procedures:

Choose an easily sensitizable path set, & pick hard-to-sensitize paths to achieve more coverage.

Identify all the variables that affect the decisions. For process dependent variables, express the nature of the process dependency as an equation, function, or whatever is convenient and clear. For correlated variables, express the logical, arithmetic, or functional relation defining the correlation.

Identify correlated predicates and document the nature of the correlation as for variables. If the same predicate appears at more than one decision, the decisions are obviously correlated.
Start path selection with uncorrelated & independent predicates. If coverage is achieved, but the path had dependent predicates, something is wrong.

It’s the act of finding a set of solutions to the path predicate expression.

In practice, for a selected path finding the required input vector is not difficult. If there is difficulty, it may be due to some bugs.

43 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

43

Path Sensitization… Heuristic procedures: contd..

If the coverage is not achieved yet with independent uncorrelated predicates, extend the path set by using correlated predicates; preferably process independent (not needing interpretation)

_U2

If the coverage is not achieved, extend the path set by using dependent predicates (typically required to cover loops), preferably uncorrelated.
Last, use correlated and dependent predicates.

For each of the path selected above, list the corresponding input variables. If the variable is independent, list its value. For dependent variables, interpret the predicate ie., list the relation. For correlated variables, state the nature of the correlation to other variables. Determine the mechanism (relation) to express the forbidden combinations of variable values, if any.
Each selected path yields a set of inequalities, which must be simultaneously satisfied to force the path.

44 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

44

Examples for Path Sensitization

1. Simple Independent Uncorrelated Predicates

_U2

2. Independent Correlated Predicates

3. Dependent Predicates

4. Generic

45 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

45

Examples for Path Sensitization..

1. Simple Independent Uncorrelated Predicates

_U2

1

4

2

7

6

A

C

B

D

9

3

5

10

8

a

b

e

c

d

f

h

l

i

j

k

m

B

_

B

A

_

A

_

C

_

D

C

Path Predicate Values Path Predicate Values

abcdef A •C abcdef A •C

aghcimkf •A B C D abcimjef A C •D

aglmjef •A •B •D abcimkf A C D

aghcdef •A B •C

aglmkf •A •B •D

4 predicates => 16 combinations

Set of possible paths = 8

A Simple case of solving inequalities. (obtained by the procedure for finding a covering set of paths)

46 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

46

Examples for Path Sensitization …

2. Correlated Independent Predicates

_U2

1

4

2

6

Y

3

5

a

c

g

d

b

f

_

Y

_

Y

Correlated paths => some paths are unachievable

ie., redundant paths.

ie., n decisions but # paths are < 2ⁿ

Due to practice of saving code which makes

the code very difficult to maintain.

Eliminate the correlated decisions.

Reproduce common code.

1

4

2

6

Y

3

a

c

g

f

b

e

_

Y

5

4’

5’

d

d’

Correlated decision removed & CFG simplified

If a chosen sensible path is not achievable,

- there’s a bug.

- design can be simplified.

- get better understanding of correlated decisions

47 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

47

_U2

Examples for Path Sensitization …

3. Dependent Predicates

Usually most of the processing does not affect the control flow.

Use computer simulation for sensitization in a simplified way.

Dependent predicates contain iterative loop statements usually.

For Loop statements:

Determine the value of loop control variable for a certain # of iterations, and then

work backward to determine the value of input variables (input vector).

48 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

48

_U2

Examples for Path Sensitization …

4. The General Case

No simple procedure to solve for values of input vector for a selected path.

1. Select cases to provide coverage on the basis of functionally sensible paths.

Well structured routines allow easy sensitization.

Intractable paths may have a bug.

If the solution is not found, path is not achievable, it could be a bug.

5. Continue until the entrance & therefore have established a set of input conditions for the path.

4. Continue tracing along the path. Pick the broadest range of values for variables affected

and consistent with values that were so far determined.

3. Start at the end of the path and list the predicates while tracing the path in reverse.

Each predicate imposes restrictions on the subsequent (in reverse order) predicate.

2. Tackle the path with the fewest decisions first. Select paths with least # of loops.

49 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

49

_U2

Examples for Path Sensitization …

4. The General Case contd..

Alternately:

1. In the forward direction, list the decisions to be traversed.

For each decision list the broadest range of input values.

Advantages & Disadvantages of the two approaches:

The forward method is usually less work.

you do not know where you are going as you are tracing the graph.

3. Continue. Some decisions may be dependent on and/or correlated with earlier ones.

2. Pick a path & adjust all input values. These restricted values are used for next decision.

4. The path is unachievable if the input values become contradictory, or, impossible.

If the path is achieved, try a new path for additional coverage.

50 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

50

PATH INSTRUMENTATION

Output of a test:

Results observed. But, there may not be any expected output for a test.

_U2-1

Expected Outcome:

Any expected change or the lack of change at the output (predicted as part of design).

Actual Outcome:

Observed outcome

Outcome:

Any change or the lack of change at the output.

51 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

51

PATH INSTRUMENTATION

Coincidental Correctness:

When expected & actual outcomes match,

Necessary conditions for test to pass are met.
Conditions met are probably not sufficient.

(the expected outcome may be achieved due to a wrong reason)

_U2-1

X = 16

CASE SELECT

Y := X - 14

Here

Y is 2

Y := 2

Y := X mod 14

Path Instrumentation is what we have to do confirm that the outcome was achieved by the intended path.

52 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing – Questions from previous exams

ref boris beizer

52

_U2

1. General strategy:

Based on Interpretive tracing & use interpreting trace program.

A trace confirms the expected outcome is or isn’t obtained along the intended path.

Computer trace may be too massive. Hand tracing may be simpler.

2. Traversal or Link Makers:

Simple and effective

Name every link.

Instrument the links so that the link is recorded when it is executed (during the test)

The succession of letters from a routine’s entry to exit corresponds to the pathname.

PATH INSTRUMENTATION METHODS

53 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

53

Single Link Marker Instrumentation: An example

_U2

Input

A,B,C

A = 7?

j

i

B$ =

“a” ?

k

No

o

C =

0 ?

l

n

m

No

B$ =

“d” ?

p

No

C ≤

0 ?

q

s

r

No

Sample path: i j n

54 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

54

Single Link Marker Instrumentation: Not good enough

_U2

Problem:

Processing in the links may be chewed open by bugs. Possibly due to GOTO statements, control takes a different path, yet resulting in the intended path again.

m

A = 7?

j

i

No

k

?

n

No

Process C

Process A

Process B

Process D

55 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

55

Double Link Marker Instrumentation:

_U2

The problem is solved.

Two link markers specify the path name and both the beginning & end of the link.

m

A = 7?

j

i

o

?

q

Process C

Process A

Process B

Process D

r

n

l

p

56 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

56

PATH INTRUMENTATION techniques…

3. Link Counters Technique:

_U2

Less disruptive and less informative.

Increment a link counter each time a link is traversed. Path length could confirm the intended path.

For avoiding the same problem as with markers, use double link counters.

Expect an even count = double the length.

Now, put a link counter on every link. (earlier it was only between decisions)

If there are no loops, the link counts are = 1.

Sum the link counts over a series of tests, say, a covering set. Confirm the total link counts with the expected.

Using double link counters avoids the same & earlier mentioned problem.

57 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

57

PATH INTRUMENTATION techniques…

3. Link Counters Technique: contd..

Check list for the procedure:

_U2

Do begin-link counter values equal the end-link counter values?

Does the input-link count of every decision equal to the sum of the link counts of the output links from that decision?

Do the sum of the input-link counts for a junction equal the output-link count for that junction?

Do the total counts match the values you predicted when you designed the covering test set?

This procedure and the checklist could solve the problem of Instrumentation.

58 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

58

PATH INTRUMENTATION techniques…

_U2

Limitations

Instrumentation probe (marker, counter) may disturb the timing relations & hide racing condition bugs.

Instrumentation probe (marker, counter) may not detect location dependent bugs.

If the presence or absence of probes modifies things (for example in the data base) in a faulty way, then the probes hide the bug in the program.

59 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

59

_U2

PATH INTRUMENTATION - IMPLEMENTATION

For Unit testing : Implementation may be provided by a comprehensive test tool.

For higher level testing or for testing an unsupported language:

Introduction of probes could introduce bugs.
Instrumentation is more important for higher level of program structure like transaction flow
At higher levels, the discrepancies in the structure are more possible & overhead of instrumentation may be less.

For Languages supporting conditional assembly or compilation:

Probes are written in the source code & tagged into categories.
Counters & traversal markers can be implemented.
Can selectively activate the desired probes.

For language not supporting conditional assembly / compilation:

Use macros or function calls for each category of probes. This may have less bugs.
A general purpose routine may be written.

In general:

Plan instrumentation with probes in levels of increasing detail.

60 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

60

_U2

Implementation & Application of Path Testing

Integration, Coverage, and Paths in Called Components

Mainly used in Unit testing, especially new software.

In an Idealistic bottom-up integration test process – integrating one component at a time. Use stubs for lower level component (sub-routines), test interfaces and then replace stubs by real subroutines.

In reality, integration proceeds in associated blocks of components. Stubs may be avoided. Need to think about paths inside the subroutine.

To achieve C1 or C2 coverage:

Predicate interpretation may require us to treat a subroutine as an in-line-code.
Sensitization becomes more difficult.
Selected path may be unachievable as the called components’ processing may block it.

Weaknesses of Path testing:

It assumes that effective testing can be done one level at a time without bothering what happens at lower levels.
predicate coverage problems & blinding.

61 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

61

_U2

Implementation & Application of Path Testing

Application of path testing to New Code

Do Path Tests for C1 + C2 coverage

Use the procedure similar to the idealistic bottom-up integration testing, using a mechanized test suite.

A path blocked or not achievable could mean a bug.

When a bug occurs the path may be blocked.

62 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

62

_U2

Implementation & Application of Path Testing

Application of path testing to Maintenance

Path testing is applied first to the modified component.

Use the procedure similar to the idealistic bottom-up integration testing, but without using stubs.

Select paths to achieve C2 over the changed code.

Newer and more effective strategies could emerge to provide coverage in maintenance phase.

63 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

63

_U2

Implementation & Application of Path Testing

Application of path testing to Rehosting

Path testing with C1 + C2 coverage is a powerful tool for rehosting old software.

Software is rehosted as it’s no more cost effective to support the application environment.

Use path testing in conjunction with automatic or semiautomatic structural test generators.

64 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing

ref boris beizer

64

_U2

Process of path testing during rehosting

A translator from the old to the new environment is created & tested. Rehosting process is to catch bugs in the translator software.

Implementation & Application of Path Testing

Application of path testing to Rehosting..

A complete C1 + C2 coverage path test suite is created for the old software. Tests are run in the old environment. The outcomes become the specifications for the rehosted software.

Another translator may be needed to adapt the tests & outcomes to the new environment.

The cost of the process is high, but it avoids risks associated with rewriting the code.

Once it runs on new environment, it can be optimized or enhanced for new

functionalities (which were not possible in the old environment.)

65 of 66

Control Flow Graphs and Path Testing – Questions from previous exams

ref boris beizer

65

For reference – just to see that we have covered these:

Q. Define Path Testing. Explain three path testing criteria.

Q. Illustrate with an example, how statement and branch coverage can be achieved during path selection. Write all steps involved in it.

Q. Write the effectiveness and limitations of path testing.

Q. Define Path Sensitization. Explain heuristic procedure for sensitizing paths with the help of an example.

Q. How can a program control structure be represented graphically? Explain with the help of required diagrams.

Q. How is a flowchart differed from a control flow chart?

Q. Explain about Multi entry and Multi exit routines & fundamental path selection criteria

Q. Explain about path instrumentation. How are link counters useful in Path Instrumentation method?

Q. Write about implementation of path testing. What are the various applications of path testing?

Q. Categorize different kinds of loops and explain.

_U2

66 of 66

Software Testing Methodology

ref boris beizer

66

To Unit 3 Transaction flow testing…

_U2