No Access

A Method for Prioritizing Integration Testing in Software Product Lines Based on Feature Model

Zahra Akbari

Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 009821, Iran

E-mail Address: z.akbari@srbiau.ac.ir

Search for more papers by this author

Sedigheh Khoshnevis

Department of Computer Engineering, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 009821, Iran

E-mail Address: s.khoshnevis@qazad.ac.ir

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Mehran Mohsenzadeh

Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 009821, Iran

E-mail Address: mohsenzadeh@srbiau.ac.ir

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194017500218Cited by:4 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Testing activities for software product lines should be different from that of single software systems, due to significant differences between software product line engineering and single software system development. The cost of testing in software product line is generally higher compared with single software systems; therefore, there should exist a certain balance between cost, quality of final products, and the time of performing testing activities. As decreasing testing cost is an important challenge in software product line integration testing, the contribution of this paper is in introducing a method for early integration testing in software product lines based on feature model (FM) by prioritizing test cases in order to decrease integration testing costs in SPLs. In this method, we focus on reusing domain engineering artifacts and prioritized selection and execution of integration test cases. It also uses separation of concerns and pruning techniques on FMs to help prioritize the test cases. The method shows to be promising when applied to some case studies in the sense that it decreases the costs of performing integration test by about 82% and also detects about 44% of integration faults in domain engineering.

Keywords:

References

1. K. Pohl, G. Böckle and F. J. van der Linden , Software Product Line Engineering (Springer, 2005). Crossref, Google Scholar
2. L. Northrop and P. Clements, A framework for software product line practice. SEI interactive 2.3, Version 5.0, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon, 1999, 2014, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines. Google Scholar
3. K. C. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak and A. S. Peterson , Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study (Carnegie-Mellon University, 1990), pp. 38–40. Crossref, Google Scholar
4. P. Ammann and J. Offutt , Introduction to Software Testing (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 200–220. Crossref, Google Scholar
5. S. Apel, D. Batory, C. Kästner and G. Saake , Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines (Springer, 2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
6. J. D. McGregor , Testing a software product line, in Testing Techniques in Software Engineering (Springer, 2010), pp. 104–140. Crossref, Google Scholar
7. B. P. Lamancha, M. Polo and M. Piattini , Systematic review on software product line testing, in Software and Data Technologies (Springer, 2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
8. E. Engström and P. Runeson , Software product line testing–a systematic mapping study, Inf. Softw. Technol. 53 (1) (2011) 2–13. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. R. S. Pressman , Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2005). Google Scholar
10. L. Jin-Hua, L. Qiong and L. Jing , The w-model for testing software product lines, Comput. Sci. Comput. Technol. 1 (2008) 690–693. Google Scholar
11. K. Chang, H. Peter, D. S. Batory and S. Khurshid , Reducing combinatorics in testing product lines, in Proc. Tenth Int. Conf. Aspect-Oriented Software Development, 2011, pp. 57–68. Google Scholar
12. A. Oberweis, V. Pankratius and W. Stucky , Product Lines for Digital Information Products (KIT Scientific Publishing, 2007), pp. 135–136. Google Scholar
13. J. Shi, M. B. Cohen and M. B. Dwyer , Integration testing of software product lines using compositional symbolic execution, in Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (Springer, 2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
14. S. Reis, A. Metzger and K. Pohl , Integration testing in software product line engineering: A model-based technique, in Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (Springer, 2007). Crossref, Google Scholar
15. T. Kishi and N. Noda , Design testing for product line development based on test scenarios, Int. Workshop on Software Product Line Testing, 2004, pp. 19–26. Google Scholar
16. A. Ensan, E. Bagheri, M. Asadi, D. Gasevic and Y. Biletskiy , Goal-oriented test case selection and prioritization for product line feature models, Eighth IEEE Int. Conf. Information Technology: New Generations, 2011, pp. 291–298. Google Scholar
17. E. Bagheri, F. Ensan and D. Gasevic , Grammar-based test generation for software product line feature models, in Proc. Conf. of Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, 2012, pp. 87–101. Google Scholar
18. S. Oster, A. Schürr and F. Markert , Model-driven software product line testing: An integrated approach, in Theory and Practice of Computer Science (Springer, 2010), pp. 112–131. Google Scholar
19. I. Cabral, M. B. Cohen and G. Rothermel , Improving the testing and testability of software product lines, in Software Product Lines: Going Beyond (Springer, 2010), pp. 241–255. Crossref, Google Scholar
20. A. Reuys, E. Kamsties, K. Pohl and S. Reis , Model-based system testing of software product families, in Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Springer, 2005), pp. 519–534. Crossref, Google Scholar
21. D. Marijan, A. Gotlieb, S. Sen and A. Hervieu , Practical pairwise testing for software product lines, in Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference, 2013, pp. 227–235. Google Scholar
22. S. Weißleder, D. Sokenou and B. H. Schlingloff , Reusing state machines for automatic test generation in product lines, in Model-Based Testing in Practice (Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 2008). Google Scholar
23. I. do Carmo Machado, J. D. McGregor, Y. C. Cavalcanti and E. S. De Almeida , On strategies for testing software product lines: A systematic literature review, Inf. Softw. Technol. 56 (10) (2014) 1183–1199. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. A. Guendouz and B. Djamal , A software product line for e-learning applications, in Int. Arab Conf. Information Technology, 2013. Google Scholar
25. I. S. Brito and A. M. Moreira , Advanced Separation of Concerns for Requirements Engineering, 2003. Google Scholar
26. T. Ostrand, J. Marc and J. Balcer , The category-partition method for specifying and generating functional tests, Commun. ACM 31 (6) (1988) 676–686. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. K. Brownlee , Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering, Vol. 150 (Wiley, 1965), pp. 120–131. Google Scholar
28. P. Sanchez, D. García-Saiz and M. Zorrilla , Software product line engineering for e-learning applications: A case study, in IEEE Int. Symp. Computers in Education, 2012. Google Scholar
29. S. Venkataraman and S. Sivakumar , Engaging students in group based learning through e-learning techniques in higher education system, Int. J. Emerg. Trends Sci. Technol. 2 (1) (2015) 220–232. Google Scholar
30. B. W. Boehm , Software risk management: Principles and practices, IEEE Softw. 8 (1) (1991) 32–41. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. Visual Paradigm for UML–UML tool for software application, Version 11.2, 2013. Google Scholar
32. A. Nayak and D. Samanta , Synthesis of test scenarios using UML activity diagrams, in Software & Systems Modeling (Springer, 2011), pp. 63–89. Crossref, Google Scholar
33. W. Linzhang, Y. Jiesong, Y. Xiaofeng, H. Jun, L. Xuandong and Z. Guo , Generating test cases from UML activity diagram based on gray-box method, in 11th Asia-Pacific Conf. Software Engineering, 2004, pp. 284–291. Google Scholar
34. R. V. Solingen, V. Basili, G. Caldiera and H. D. Rombach , Goal Question Metric Approach (Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2002). Crossref, Google Scholar
35. H. Sneed , Measuring the Effectiveness of a Test, EuroSTAR 1, Vienna, Austria, 2004. Google Scholar
36. M. Mendonca, B. Moises and C. Donald , SPLOT: Software product lines online tools, in Proc. 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conf. Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, 2009, pp. 761–762. Google Scholar