CN103226512A - Component composition test method based on combination of component test case suites - Google Patents

Abstract

The invention discloses a component composition test method based on combination of component test case suites, and belongs to the field of software testing. The component composition test method uses single component test case suites to combine new test cases used for component composition testing, so that the effects of reusing the conventional work and saving the development cost are achieved. According to the method, through the analysis of interactive component activities, composition test cases are generated on the condition that model assembly is not performed, and accordingly, a series of problems during model assembly are avoided.

Description

Member assembling method of testing based on the combination of component testing set of uses case

Technical field

The present invention relates to a kind of member assembling method of testing, belong to the technical field of software test based on the combination of component testing set of uses case.

Background technology

The member assembling is based on the component software exploitation, and (the member assembling test generally is by the model combination at present, generates the interactive testing use-case from the entire system model that obtains for Component-based Software Development, core technology CBSD).The problem of bringing like this one is in the fashionable blast that is easy to generate state space of model group, the 2nd, and some work of finishing when unit testing will repeat.In the process of CBSD, can be multiplexing except member, also there is the character of reusability in the test use cases of member.

The test use cases of a member has comprised test process and the test result to function that this member provides.In general, except at some special user's request, member all unlikely changes a lot on interface and function.Therefore in the CBSD process, can come the composite software system by multiplexing existing member, also can multiplexing corresponding test case be used for carrying out the member assembling test.

Summary of the invention

The present invention proposes a kind of member assembling method of testing based on the test case combination, utilizes single component testing set of uses case, and the test case that combination makes new advances is used for the member assembling test, thereby reaches multiplexing existing work, saves the effect of cost of development.

Technical scheme of the present invention: a kind of member assembling method of testing based on the combination of component testing set of uses case, establish the member M that passes through single component testing ₁With M ₂Be assembled into the P of system, test philosophy is C, T _M1And T _M2Be respectively member M ₁With M ₂Satisfy the test use cases of C-adequate-for-P, O is an output interface, and I is an input interface, O _M1Be M ₁Output interface set, I _M1Be M ₁Input interface set;

Definition: if the test use cases T of member M _MComprise δ D _C(P-relevant (D _M)) at least one test data in each subdomain, then claim T _MSatisfy C-adequate-for-P, wherein, D _MBe the input subdomain of member M, P-relevant (D _M) employed D when representing the P of system component invoking M _MIn subclass, δ D _C(D _M) represent that the member M by test philosophy C derivation all imports the multiset of subdomain;

Concrete testing procedure is as follows:

Step 1: definition member M ₁And M ₂, when

And

Or

The time claim that they are assemblnig, IP wherein _M1Expression M ₁Provide the set of interfaces of service, IR _M1Expression M ₁The set of interfaces of request service, IP _M2Expression M ₂Provide the set of interfaces of service, IR _M2Expression M ₂If the set of interfaces of request service is M ₁And M ₂Can not assemble then end operation;

Step 2: obtain member M ₂Need M ₁The service that provides, i.e. IP _M1∩ IR _M2, obtain member M ₁Need M ₂The service that provides, i.e. IP _M2∩ IR _M1, draw M ₁And M ₂The union that needs the service that the other side provides, i.e. Shared (M ₁, M ₂)=(IP _M1∩ IR _M2) ∪ (IP _M2∩ IR _M1);

Step 3: from T _M1With T _M2In find out and integrated relevant test use cases, at test use cases T _M1In each test case t _i, judge member M ₁Each output interface O _iWhether be present in test case t _iIn, if O _iBe present in t _iIn, and O _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M1In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant part is with (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M1) [k] note t _i, wherein i represents M ₁The number of middle test case;

At member M ₁Each input interface I _j, judge I _jWhether be present in test case t _iIn, if I _jBe present in t _iIn, and I _jBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M1In with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant part is with (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M1) [l] note I _j, wherein, j represents M ₁The number of middle input interface;

Again at test use cases T _M2In each test case t _k, judge member M ₂Each output interface O _kWhether be present in test case t _kIn, if O _kBe present in t _kIn, and O _kBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, test case t is described so _kBelong to T _M2In with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant part is used

(IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M2) [k] note t _k, wherein, k represents M ₂Middle test case number;

At member M ₂Each input interface I _l, judge I _lWhether be present in test case t _kIn, if I _lBe present in t _kIn, and I _lBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, test case t is described so _kBelong to T _M2In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant part is with (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M2) [l] note I _l, wherein, l represents M ₂The number of middle input interface;

Step 4: the interface according to coupling, carry out subtracting approximately of test case, to Shared (M ₁, M ₂) in each interface a, T _M1, T _M2In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2And IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case t _p, the type of pressing a is with t _pBe set at a fixed value, remove identical test case, wherein, p represents dependence test use-case number;

Step 5: the syntagmatic in the determining step 4 between the gained test case, calculation combination result:

At T _M1In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case t _iAnd T _M2In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case t _kCarry out following processing,

(501): judge t _iIn arbitrary interface x _iWhether belong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2If, x _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, simultaneously, have t _kAnd x _iBelong to t _k, then continue to judge x _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _iAt t _kWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if x _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _iAt t _kThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (502);

(502): judge t _kIn arbitrary interface y _iWhether belong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2If, y _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, simultaneously, have t _iAnd y _iBelong to t _i, then continue to judge y _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _iAt t _kWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if y _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _iAt t _kThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (503);

(503): through the t of step (501), (502) processing _iWith t _kCombination belongs to M ₁With M ₂The assembling test use-case, with IntTest (M ₁M ₂) [k] record, otherwise record not;

Again at T _M2In each and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case t _kAnd T _M1In each and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case t _iCarry out following processing,

(504): judge t _kIn arbitrary interface x _kWhether belong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1If, x _kBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, simultaneously, have t _iAnd x _kBelong to t _i, then continue to judge x _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _kAt t _iWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if x _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _kAt t _iThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (505);

(505): judge t _iIn arbitrary interface y _kWhether belong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1If, y _kBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, simultaneously, have t _kAnd y _kBelong to t _k, then continue to judge y _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _kAt t _iWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if y _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _kAt t _iThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (506);

(506): through the t of step (504), (505) processing _iWith t _kCombination belongs to M ₁With M ₂The assembling test use-case, with IntTest (M ₁M ₂) [k] record, otherwise record not;

The union of all test cases that process above-mentioned steps 1 to step 5 obtains is exactly M ₁With M ₂The set of uses case of assembling test.

Further, in step 5, the property capable of being combined of test case is judged by following method:

The test use cases of member P and Q is respectively T _PAnd T _Q, test case

t ₁=(v ₁, i ₁, o ₁, i ₂, o ₂..., i _m, o _n, v _n) ∈ T _P, t ₂=(v ₁', i ₁', o ₁', i ₂', o ₂' ..., i _m', o _n', v _n') ∈ T _Q, if satisfy:

(1)

(2) $\&ForAll;x\&Element;\{{\mathrm{<figure-callout\; id="1"\; label="o"\; filenames="130221084824.png"\; state="\{\{state\}\}">o</figure-callout>}}_1,...,o_n\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q),$ $\&Exists;x\&Element;\{{i^{\&prime;}}_1,...,{i^{\&prime;}}_{m^{\&prime;}}\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q),$

$\&ForAll;x\&Element;\{{i^{\&prime;}}_1,...,{i^{\&prime;}}_{m^{\&prime;}}\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q),$ $\&Exists;x\&Element;\{o_1,...,o_n\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q);$

Wherein, Onum is that x is at t ₁The middle number of times that occurs, Inum is that x is at t ₂The middle number of times that occurs, and

Onum＝Inum；

Then claim test case t ₁And t ₂Can make up, wherein, v ₁Be t ₁The state of system before carrying out, i ₁, i ₂I _mThe expression input operation, o ₁, o ₂O _nThe expression output function, v _nBe t ₁Carry out the state of back system; v ₁' be t ₂The state of system before carrying out, i ₁', i ₂' ... i _m' the expression input operation, o ₁', o ₂' ... o _n' the expression output function, v _n' be t ₂Carry out the state of back system, m and n are natural number.

Further, when a plurality of members are assembled,, make it be varied to the form of two above-mentioned members assemblings by the assembling in twos of member.

Method disclosed by the invention generates the assembling test use-case, thereby has avoided the fashionable a series of problems of model group by the analysis to the component interactive activity under the situation of not carrying out the model assembling.

Description of drawings

Fig. 1 is the universal model figure of member assembling, wherein:

Can cause M in the input domain of the 1 expression P of system ₁Invoked part is expressed as M ₁-traverse (D _P);

Can cause M in the input domain of the 2 expression P of system ₁Be called and and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant input subdomain;

Can cause M in the input domain of the 3 expression P of system ₂Be called and and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant input subdomain;

Can cause M in the input domain of the 4 expression P of system ₂Invoked part is expressed as M ₂-traverse (D _P).

Fig. 2 is a component order assembling exemplary plot.

Fig. 3 is the IT-on-CUTC algorithm flow chart.

Embodiment

The member that the present invention's supposition will be assembled only need be tested the mutual situation between the different component all by unit testing (single component testing) when member is assembled.Assemblnig member is realized the transmission of information between the two by the interface of coupling, and the emphasis of member assembling is a correctness of guaranteeing that this information is transmitted.The test use cases of single member can be verified a relation between the member input and output, and the combination by test case, can realize the assembling test of member.

We at first provide three definition that will use,

Definition 1(member): Component is one two tuple: Component=＜I _C, P _C＞, wherein,

I _C=＜IP _C, IR _C＞be the set of component interface static nature, wherein IP _C={ ip _C1, ip _C2..., ip _CmBe the set of interfaces that member provides service, IR _C={ ir _C1, ir _C2..., ir _CnBe the set of interfaces of member request service, each interface comprises quantity, particular type, the invariant of parameter, precondition and postcondition;

$P_C=<V_C,V_C^{\mathrm{init}},A_C^I,A_C^O,A_C^H,T_C>,$ It is the dynamic behaviour model of member.

Definition 2 (but assembleabilities of member): two member P and Q are if satisfy condition:

Or

Claim that then they are assemblnig.Make Shared (P, Q)=(IP _P∩ IR _Q) ∪ (IP _Q∩ IR _P), we represent the assembling of two members with P#Q.

Definition 3 (test case): test case t are ordered sequences of one group of state and input and output interface operation, with t=(v ₁, i ₁, o ₁, i ₂, i ₃, o ₂..., i _m, o _n, v _n) expression.v ₁Be the state of system before the t execution, i represents input operation, and o represents output function, v _nBe the state of t execution back system, n and m are generally unequal.

Illustrate: in a test case, may exist a plurality of continuous input correspondences an output, perhaps an input (a plurality of continuous input) corresponding the situation of a plurality of continuous outputs, wherein each interface operation can be got a plurality of different values.

For member M, generating test case according to certain test philosophy C is exactly the representative data that selection can meet the demands in the input space of M.If a plurality of members all have the test use cases that satisfies test philosophy C, and have mutual interface to fit together, whether the combination of test use cases can effectively be tested and need analyze the validity of test case combination component composition so.We analyze this problem by the related notion of input space subdomain.

Analytic system and comprise relation between the test use cases of member, provide two related definitions.In the subdomain strategy based on system architecture, subdomain is defined as comprising all input set that can cause a specific code element to be performed.Supposing has the P of system, wherein includes member M, based on the testing adequacy criterion C of subdomain, D _PBe the input subdomain of P, D _MInput subdomain for member M.M-traverse (D _P) expression D _PIn can cause the set of invoked all input elements of M, M-bypass (D _P) expression D _PIn with the irrelevant input element set of M; P-relevant (D _M) employed D when representing P component invoking M _MIn subclass, P-irrelevant (D _M) the untapped D of expression P _MSubclass; δ D _C(D _P) be the multiset of all importing subdomain by the system P that C derives, δ D _C(D _M) be the multiset of all importing subdomain by the member M that C derives.

Definition 4 (C-adequate): if T _PComprise δ D _C(D _P) at least one test data in each subdomain, then claim the test use cases T of the P of system _PSatisfy C-adequate; Equally, if T _MComprise δ D _C(D _M) at least one test data in each subdomain, then claim the test use cases T of member M _MSatisfy C-adequate.

Definition 5 (C-adequate-for-P): if T _MComprise δ D _C(P-relevant (D _M)) at least one test data in each subdomain, then claim the test use cases T of member M _MSatisfy C-adequate-for-P.

System P comprises member M, and definition 5 is the test use cases T that describe M _MThe notion of validity for P.If P calls δ D _C(D _M) each subdomain in have data at least by T _MTest, then think T _MFor program P, can satisfy test philosophy C.Above-mentioned notion to total system and wherein the test use cases of the member that uses analyze respectively, wherein C-adequate is the notion that the validity of single test use cases is measured, and C-adequate-for-P comprehensively considers system's member employed with it, then the validity of analytical test set of uses case.

But we have verified the assembleability of selected member behavior model in the design phase at supposition, so can produce of deadlock after the member assembling and situation such as illegal state, only consider how component groups is fitted together and test job accordingly in the assembling stage.

Utilize above-mentioned notion, the assembling mode that we are different according to member is analyzed the mutual situation that may exist between the member, draws the universal model of member assembling, as shown in Figure 1.Situation when only providing two member assemblings among the figure, the situation of a plurality of member assemblings similarly can realize by the assembling in twos of member.

System shown in Figure 1 P is by member M ₁With M ₂Assembling realize, can cause M in the input domain of line 1 and the 2 expression P of system ₁Invoked part is expressed as M ₁-traverse (D _P), can cause M in the input domain of line 3 and the 4 expression P of system ₂Invoked part is expressed as M ₂-traverse (D _P).Dotted line 2 expression and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant input subdomain, dotted line 3 expression and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant input subdomain.

According to the assembling mode difference, member assembling is divided into four kinds of fundamental types: in proper order, select, repeat and parallel assembling, Fig. 1 has described the universal models of two member assemblings.If line 1,3,4 does not wherein have, have only dotted line 2, Fig. 1 just becomes M ₁Whole outputs as M ₂Situation during input, then this model representation member M ₁With M ₂Order assembling; If line 2,3 is empty, the alternative condition between 1,4 can be realized member M ₁With M ₂Selection assembling; 1,2,3,4 then do not represent M for sky ₁With M ₂It is parallel assembled relation; Repeating to assemble the input that can be re-used as himself by the output with a member realizes.

As can be seen from Figure 1 after the member assembling, the function part of system P can be by M ₁And M ₂Realize that separately another part may be finished by the interactive collaboration of the two.If M ₁With M ₂All by unit testing and can be met the test use cases T of C-adequate-for-P _M1And T _M2, then the test of figure center line 1 part can be passed through T _M1In the relevant portion input that is mapped as P realize that the test of line 4 parts can be by T _M2In the relevant portion input that is mapped as P finish.Dotted line 2 expression M ₁Offer M ₂Input, its test can be by T _M1And T _M2In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case makes up and realizes, the test of same dotted line 3 can by with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case makes up to be finished.

The present invention mainly studies the interactive testing when how the test use cases of multiplexing single member carries out the member assembling, promptly to the test of 2,3 parts of the dotted line among Fig. 1.Certain interface I for member M _M, T _MCan be divided into and this interface related part and the part that has nothing to do with this interface.The test use cases T of member M _MIn with interface I _MRelevant test use cases, we use I _M_ relevant (T _M) expression, i.e. I _M_ relevant (T _M) in the operation of each test case all include interface I _MT _MIn with interface I _MIncoherent test case is gathered us and is used I _M_ irrelevant (T _M) expression, I _M_ irrelevant (T _M)=T _M-(I _M_ relevant (T _M)), promptly in the operation of each test case do not comprise interface I _M

By above-mentioned analysis,, provide the definition of test case property capable of being combined and test case combination below in conjunction with existing definition.

Definition 6 (property capable of being combined of test case): the test use cases of member P and Q is respectively T _PAnd T _Q, test case t ₁=(v ₁, i ₁, o ₁, i ₂, o ₂..., i _m, o _n, v _n) ∈ T _P, t ₂=(v ₁', i ₁', o ₁', i ₂', o ₂' ..., i _m', o _n', v _n') ∈ T _Q, if satisfy:

(1)

(2)

Onum is that x is at t ₁The middle number of times that occurs,

Inum is that x is at t ₂The middle number of times that occurs, and Onum=Inum;

Inum is that x is at t ₂The middle number of times that occurs, Onum is that x is at t ₁The middle number of times that occurs, and Inum=Onum;

Then claim test case t ₁And t ₂Can make up.

Definition 6 has illustrated the requirement to the test case combination, at first the two must have the interface operation that is complementary, require then in the output of a test case, if relate to the interactive interface operation of two members, then require this operation must appear in the input of another test case and occurrence number identical.Condition (1) has guaranteed that test case capable of being combined has the interface that is complementary, and condition (2) has then guaranteed test case capable of being combined interface quantity and type consistent when interactive operation.Such as, suppose t ₁Certain output information " ok " belong to Shared (P Q), but do not belong to t ₂Input, this moment t ₂That need in the input operation is Shared (P, Q) in " fail ".Then show t ₁The operation described sequence and t ₂Do not match, the two can not make up in this case.

The combination of definition 7(test case): suppose test case t ₁=(v ₁, i ₁, o ₁, i ₂, o ₂..., o _M-1, i _m, o _n, v _n) ∈ T _P, t ₂=(v ₁', i ₁', o ₁', i ₂', o ₂' ..., i _M-1', o _M-1', i _m', o _n', v _n') ∈ T _Q, Shared (P, Q)=(x ₁, x ₂), x wherein ₁=o ₁=i ₂', x ₂=o _M-1'=i _mT as a result after then making up ₁T ₂For:

t ₁·t ₂＝((v ₁,v ₁'),i ₁,i ₁',o ₁',i ₂,o ₂,...,o _m-1,o ₂',...,i _m-1',o _n,i _m',o _n',(v _n,v _n'))。

t ₁T ₂The state of system is (v before carrying out ₁, v ₁'), the state after the execution is (v _n, v _n').t ₁And t ₂In the sequence of operation synchronous at the interface that is complementary, and with mutual irrelevant operation can be by successively making up smoothly on the basis that keeps former sequence.In the implementation of test case, the input activity can be controlled, therefore can be by to importing movable adjustment, make t ₁T ₂Operation satisfy form in the definition 7.t ₁T ₂Formal description the ordinal relation of carrying out between two test cases, promptly require t ₁Prior to t ₂Operation.t ₁With t ₂After the combination, the interface operation that is complementary becomes internal activity, no longer belongs to inputoutput data.In order to express the matched interfaces of two test cases, the internal activity that obtains after the combination can be retained among the result.

For example: if t ₁=(V ₀, start?, computer; , msg! , ok?, return! , V ₁), t ₂=(V ₀', msg?, send! , ack?, ok! , V ₁'), t then ₁T ₂=((V ₀, V ₀'), start?, computer; , msg; , send! , ack?, ok; , (V ₁, V ₁')).

Figure 2 shows that the anabolic process of the test case of two members, two member User identification and Account are the relations of order assembling among the figure.

Suppose the test case T of User identification ₁Collection comprises two test cases:

t ₁=(V _b,ID？,Password？,Valid?user！,V _e)；t ₂=(V _b,ID？,Password？,Invalid?user！,V _e)；

Suppose the test use cases T of Account ₁' two test cases are also arranged:

t ₁'=(V _b’,Valid?user？,User?info！,V _e’)；t ₂'=(V _b’,Invalid?user？,Error?info!,V _e’)。

Then the combined result of two component testing sets of uses case is:

t ₁·t ₁'=(V _b,ID？,Password？,Valid?user！,V _e)·(V _b’,Valid?user？,User?info！,V _e’)

=((V _b,V _b’),ID？,Password？,Valid?user;,User?info!,(V _e,V _e’))；

t ₂·t ₂'=(V _b,ID？,Password？,Invalid?user！,V _e)(V _b’,Invalid?user？,Error?info！,V _e’)

=((V _b,V _b’),ID？,Password？,Invalid?user;,Error?info！,(V _e,V _e’))。

And t ₁T ₂' and t ₂T ₁' because of not satisfying the definition in the definition 6, so can not make up.Therefore, according to T ₁And T ₁', the t that is generated ₁T ₁' and t ₂T ₂' promptly be the interactive testing set of uses case of member User identification and Account.

When test case makes up, also to determine to make up the beginning and the done state of back test case, this process is comparatively simple, and only the corresponding states of two test cases need be grouped together gets final product.We ignore the introduction of this part in the content afterwards, a docking port operation part be combined into line description.

Information is mutual normally two-way in the component groups process of assembling, the analysis by Fig. 1 as can be known, if member M ₁With M ₂Can assemble (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ releva (nt _M1T represents M ₁In can call M ₂Test use cases, (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M2) expression M ₂In can be by M ₁The test use cases that calls, the combination of these two test use cases has been represented and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test activity.In like manner, (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M2) and (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M1) combination can test and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant activity.Therefore, the combination by the dependence test use-case can realize the test to component interactive.

Illustrate: in order effectively to generate the assembling test use-case, when test use cases made up, if the interface of a coupling becomes internal interface, then test case concentrated interface related therewith test case to subtract approximately.Can give fixed value of this interface setting, concentrate in test case then identical test case is removed.

The analysis and arrangement said process, we propose a kind of by unit testing set of uses case combination generation interactive testing use-case (Interaction Testing based on Composition of Unit Test Case, method IT-on-CUTC).This method is at first analyzed two component interfaces, determine the interface operation that relates to alternately, then test use cases is subtracted approximately, counterpart in test use cases relevant in first member and second the component testing set of uses case is made up, again the dependence test set of uses case of second member and the counterpart in first member are made up, guarantee that like this all interactive operations that relate to can both be tested; Obtain the required test use cases of component interactive test at last.The total flow process of algorithm specifically describes following (is example with two members) as shown in Figure 3:

If member M ₁With M ₂Be assembled into the P of system, test philosophy is C, T _M1And T _M2Be satisfied

Test use cases.O is an output interface, and i is an input interface, o _M1Be M ₁Output interface set, i _M1Be M ₁Input interface set.

Step1:, use IP according to definition 1 and definition 2 _M1, IR _M1With IP _M2, IR _M2Judge M ₁With M ₂Whether can assemble, if end operation then.

Step2: obtain IP _M1∩ IR _M2With IP _M2∩ IR _M1, i.e. Shared (M ₁, M ₂).

Step3: from T _M1With T _M2In find out and integrated relevant test use cases:

For test use cases T _M1In each test case and member M ₁Each output interface, judge each output interface o _iIf, output interface o _iBe present in test case t _iIn, and o _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M1In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant part is with (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M1) [k] note t _iFor member M ₁Each input interface, judge each input interface i _jIf, input interface i _jBe present in test case t _iIn, and i _jBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M1In with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant part is with (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M1) [l] note i _j

For test use cases T _M2In each test case and for member M ₂Each output interface, judge each output interface o _iIf, output interface o _iBe present in test case t _iIn, and o _iBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M2In with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant part is with (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M2) [k] note t _iFor member M ₂Each input interface, judge each input interface i _jIf, input interface i _jBe present in test case t _iIn, and i _jBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M2In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant part is with (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M2) [l] note i _j

Step4: the interface according to coupling, carry out subtracting approximately of test case:

For Shared (M ₁, M ₂) in each interface and T _M1And T _M2In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2And IP _M2∩ IR _M1The type that relevant test case is pressed a is set at a fixed value with relevant test case, removes identical test case.

Step5: determine the syntagmatic between the gained test case among the Step3, calculation combination result:

For T _M1In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case and T _M2In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case is judged t _iIn arbitrary interface x _iIf, x _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, have t _jAnd x _iBelong to t _jIf, this moment x _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _iAt t _jThe middle number of times that occurs equates, continues to judge; For t _jIn arbitrary interface y _iIf, y _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, have t _iAnd y _iBelong to t _iIf, this moment y _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _iAt t _jThe middle number of times that occurs is equal, so t _iWith t _jCombination belong to M ₁With M ₂The assembling test use-case, with IntTest (M ₁M ₂) [k] record.

For T _M2In each and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case and T _M1In each and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case is judged t _iIn arbitrary interface x _iIf, x _iBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, have t _jAnd x _iBelong to t _jIf, this moment x _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _iAt t _jThe middle number of times that occurs equates, continues to judge; For t _jIn arbitrary interface y _iIf, y _iBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, have t _iAnd y _iBelong to t _iIf, this moment y _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _iAt t _jThe middle number of times that occurs is equal, so t _iWith t _jCombination belong to M ₁With M ₂The assembling test use-case.The union of above-mentioned all test cases that obtain is exactly M ₁With M ₂The assembling test set of uses case, promptly be used for M ₁With M ₂Set of uses case IntTest (the M of interactive portion test ₁M ₂).

Step3, Step4 and Step5 are topmost calculation procedures in the algorithm, establish T _M1And T _M2The maximal value of middle test case number is n, and interface input data number related in each test case mostly is m most, and then the time complexity of algorithm is O (n ²* m ²).During actual the use, T _M1And T _M2In the test case number that can make up generally much smaller than n, so the complexity of this algorithm can be much smaller than O (n ²* m ²).

Claims (3)

1. the member assembling method of testing based on the combination of component testing set of uses case is characterized in that: establish the member M that passes through single component testing ₁With M ₂Be assembled into the P of system, test philosophy is C, T _M1And T _M2Be respectively member M ₁With M ₂Satisfy the test use cases of C-adequate-for-P, O is an output interface, and I is an input interface, O _M1Be M ₁Output interface set, I _M1Be M ₁Input interface set;

Definition: if the test use cases T of member M _MComprise δ D _C(P-relevant (D _M)) at least one test data in each subdomain, then claim T _MSatisfy C-adequate-for-P, wherein, D _MBe the input subdomain of member M, P-relevant (D _M) employed D when representing the P of system component invoking M _MIn subclass, δ D _C(D _M) represent that the member M by test philosophy C derivation all imports the multiset of subdomain;

Concrete testing procedure is as follows:

Step 1: definition member M ₁And M ₂, when

And

Or The time claim that they are assemblnig, IP wherein _M1Expression M ₁Provide the set of interfaces of service, IR _M1Expression M ₁The set of interfaces of request service, IP _M2Expression M ₂Provide the set of interfaces of service, IR _M2Expression M ₂If the set of interfaces of request service is M ₁And M ₂Can not assemble then end operation;

Step 2: obtain member M ₂Need M ₁The service that provides, i.e. IP _M1∩ IR _M2, obtain member M ₁Need M ₂The service that provides, i.e. IP _M2∩ IR _M1, draw M ₁And M ₂The union that needs the service that the other side provides, i.e. Shared (M ₁, M ₂)=(IP _M1∩ IR _M2) ∪ (IP _M2∩ IR _M1);

Step 3: from T _M1With T _M2In find out and integrated relevant test use cases, at test use cases T _M1In each test case t _i, judge member M ₁Each output interface O _iWhether be present in test case t _iIn, if O _iBe present in t _iIn, and O _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M1In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant part is with (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M1) [k] note t _i, wherein i represents M ₁The number of middle test case;

At member M ₁Each input interface I _j, judge I _jWhether be present in test case t _iIn, if I _jBe present in t _iIn, and I _jBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, test case t is described so _iBelong to T _M1In with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant part is with (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M1) [l] note I _j, wherein, j represents M ₁The number of middle input interface;

Again at test use cases T _M2In each test case t _k, judge member M ₂Each output interface O _kWhether be present in test case t _kIn, if O _kBe present in t _kIn, and O _kBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, test case t is described so _kBelong to T _M2In with IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant part is with (IP _M2∩ IR _M1) _ relevant (T _M2) [k] note t _k, wherein, k represents M ₂Middle test case number;

At member M ₂Each input interface I _l, judge I _lWhether be present in test case t _kIn, if I _lBe present in t _kIn, and I _lBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, test case t is described so _kBelong to T _M2In with IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant part is with (IP _M1∩ IR _M2) _ relevant (T _M2) [l] note I _l, wherein, l represents M ₂The number of middle input interface;

Step 4: the interface according to coupling, carry out subtracting approximately of test case, to Shared (M ₁, M ₂) in each interface a, T _M1, T _M2In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2And IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case t _p, the type of pressing a is with t _pBe set at a fixed value, remove identical test case, wherein, p represents dependence test use-case number;

Step 5: the syntagmatic in the determining step 4 between the gained test case, calculation combination result:

At T _M1In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case t _iAnd T _M2In each and IP _M1∩ IR _M2Relevant test case t _kCarry out following processing,

(501): judge t _iIn arbitrary interface x _iWhether belong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2If, x _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, simultaneously, have t _kAnd x _iBelong to t _k, then continue to judge x _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _iAt t _kWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if x _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _iAt t _kThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (502);

(502): judge t _kIn arbitrary interface y _iWhether belong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2If, y _iBelong to IP _M1∩ IR _M2, simultaneously, have t _iAnd y _iBelong to t _i, then continue to judge y _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _iAt t _kWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if y _iAt t _iMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _iAt t _kThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (503);

(503): through the t of step (501), (502) processing _iWith t _kCombination belongs to M ₁With M ₂The assembling test use-case, with IntTest (M ₁M ₂) [k] record, otherwise record not;

Again at T _M2In each and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case t _kAnd T _M1In each and IP _M2∩ IR _M1Relevant test case t _iCarry out following processing,

(504): judge t _kIn arbitrary interface x _kWhether belong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1If, x _kBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, simultaneously, have t _iAnd x _kBelong to t _i, then continue to judge x _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _kAt t _iWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if x _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the x that occurs _kAt t _iThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (505);

(505): judge t _iIn arbitrary interface y _kWhether belong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1If, y _kBelong to IP _M2∩ IR _M1, simultaneously, have t _kAnd y _kBelong to t _k, then continue to judge y _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _kAt t _iWhether the middle number of times that occurs equates, if y _kAt t _kMiddle number of times and the y that occurs _kAt t _iThe middle number of times that occurs equates, enters step (506);

(506): through the t of step (504), (505) processing _iWith t _kCombination belongs to M ₁With M ₂The assembling test use-case, with IntTest (M ₁M ₂) [k] record, otherwise record not;

The union of all test cases that process above-mentioned steps 1 to step 5 obtains is exactly M ₁With M ₂The set of uses case of assembling test.

2. member assembling method of testing as claimed in claim 1 is characterized in that in step 5, the property capable of being combined of test case is judged by following method:

The test use cases of member P and Q is respectively T _PAnd T _Q, test case

t ₁=(v ₁, i ₁, o ₁, i ₂, o ₂..., i _m, o _n, v _n) ∈ T _P, t ₂=(v ₁', i ₁', o ₁', i ₂', o ₂' ..., i _m', o _n', v _n') ∈ T _Q, if satisfy:

(1)

(2) $\&ForAll;x\&Element;\{o_1,...,o_n\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q),$ $\&Exists;x\&Element;\{{i^{\&prime;}}_1,...,{i^{\&prime;}}_{m^{\&prime;}}\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q),$

$\&ForAll;x\&Element;\{{i^{\&prime;}}_1,...,{i^{\&prime;}}_{m^{\&prime;}}\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q),$ $\&Exists;x\&Element;\{o_1,...,o_n\}\&cap;\mathrm{Shared}(P,Q);$

Wherein, Onum is that x is at t ₁The middle number of times that occurs, Inum is that x is at t ₂The middle number of times that occurs, and

Onum＝Inum；

Then claim test case t ₁And t ₂Can make up, wherein, v ₁Be t ₁The state of system before carrying out, i ₁, i ₂I _mThe expression input operation, o ₁, o ₂O _nThe expression output function, v _nBe t ₁Carry out the state of back system; v ₁' be t ₂The state of system before carrying out, i ₁', i ₂' ... i _m' the expression input operation, o ₁', o ₂' ... o _n' the expression output function, v _n' be t ₂Carry out the state of back system, m and n are natural number.

3. a kind of member assembling method of testing based on the combination of component testing set of uses case as claimed in claim 1 is characterized in that: when a plurality of members are assembled, by the assembling in twos of member, make it be varied to the form of two members assembling as claimed in claim 1.

Images