CN109032932A - A kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint - Google Patents
A kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN109032932A CN109032932A CN201810738553.5A CN201810738553A CN109032932A CN 109032932 A CN109032932 A CN 109032932A CN 201810738553 A CN201810738553 A CN 201810738553A CN 109032932 A CN109032932 A CN 109032932A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- parameter
- examining system
- point
- case
- independence
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
- G06F11/36—Preventing errors by testing or debugging software
- G06F11/3668—Software testing
- G06F11/3672—Test management
- G06F11/3684—Test management for test design, e.g. generating new test cases
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
- G06F11/36—Preventing errors by testing or debugging software
- G06F11/3668—Software testing
- G06F11/3672—Test management
- G06F11/3688—Test management for test execution, e.g. scheduling of test suites
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Test And Diagnosis Of Digital Computers (AREA)
Abstract
A kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint, it is used for software testing technology field.The present invention solves the problems, such as not considering existing for traditional combination of software test failure localization method influence of the restriction on the parameters limitation to fault location in combined test.The present invention obtains the error checking use-case of system according to the implementing result of whole test cases, then judges that examining system with the presence or absence of independence safety value, is finally combined test failure positioning according to the judging result of independence safety value；Compared with traditional combined test Fault Locating Method, Fault Locating Method of the invention considers influence of the restriction on the parameters limitation to fault location in combined test, therefore, the scope of application of the method for the present invention is wider, practicability is stronger, overcomes the limitation of the prior art.Present invention could apply to software testing technology field use.
Description
Technical field
The invention belongs to software testing technology fields, and in particular to a kind of combined test fault location side for supporting constraint
Method.
Background technique
After software test has found failure, developer needs to find out to cause failure reason for it, i.e. the event of progress software
Barrier positioning, then by fault location as a result, developer, which can be deep into inside code, carries out fault restoration.
In combination of software test, usually assume that the value of each input parameter is independent of each other, but in actual software system
In system, the phenomenon that generally existing restriction on the parameters, this will lead to certain parameter values combinations or input sequence is nonsensical or even nothing
Effect, and the research of traditional combination of software test failure localization method or software-based internal structural information or based on soft
Part reruns, and there is no consider influence of the restriction on the parameters limitation to fault location in combined test.
Summary of the invention
The purpose of the present invention is survey not consider to combine existing for the traditional combination of software test failure localization method of solution
Restriction on the parameters limits the problem of influence to fault location in examination.
The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the above technical problem is:
A kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint, the specific steps of this method are as follows:
Step 1: executing whole test cases of examining system, obtained according to the implementing result of whole test cases correct
Test use cases and error checking set of uses case；
Step 2: according to the safety value and constraint set of examining system, to judge examining system with the presence or absence of independence safety
Value；
Step 3: if step 2 judges examining system, there are independence safety values, directly utilize the independence of examining system
Property safety value be combined test failure positioning；
Step 4: if step 2 judges examining system, there is no independence safety values, execute the acquisition of analytical procedure one
Error checking use-case, to be combined test failure positioning；
The beneficial effects of the present invention are: the present invention provides a kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint, this
Invention obtains the error checking use-case of system according to the implementing result of whole test cases first, then whether judges examining system
There are independence safety values, and test failure positioning is finally combined according to the judging result of independence safety value；With tradition
Combined test Fault Locating Method compare, Fault Locating Method of the invention considers in combined test restriction on the parameters limitation pair
The influence of fault location, therefore, the scope of application of the method for the present invention is wider, practicability is stronger, overcomes the limitation of the prior art.
Method of the invention plays the role of the combined test fault location of software systems good.
Detailed description of the invention
Fig. 1 is a kind of main flow chart of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint of the present invention；
Fig. 2 is that a mistake is analyzed in a kind of execution of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint of the present invention
The flow chart of test case；
Fig. 3 is the schematic diagram of two distinct types of mistake interaction；
Fig. 4 is the system parameter number of the embodiment of the present invention and the relation curve of maximum determining constraint number；
Fig. 5 is the value number of the system parameter of the embodiment of the present invention and the relation curve of maximum determining constraint number.
Specific embodiment
Further description of the technical solution of the present invention with reference to the accompanying drawing, and however, it is not limited to this, all to this
Inventive technique scheme is modified or replaced equivalently, and without departing from the spirit and scope of the technical solution of the present invention, should all be covered
Within the protection scope of the present invention.
Specific embodiment 1: embodiment is described with reference to Fig. 1.A kind of group for supporting constraint described in present embodiment
Close test failure localization method, the specific steps of this method are as follows:
Step 1: executing whole test cases of examining system, obtained according to the implementing result of whole test cases correct
Test use cases and error checking set of uses case；
Step 2: according to the safety value and constraint set of examining system, to judge examining system with the presence or absence of independence safety
Value；
Step 3: if step 2 judges examining system, there are independence safety values, directly utilize the independence of examining system
Property safety value be combined test failure positioning；
Step 4: if step 2 judges examining system, there is no independence safety values, execute the acquisition of analytical procedure one
Error checking use-case, to be combined test failure positioning.
Specific embodiment 2: present embodiment is to a kind of combined test failure for supporting constraint described in embodiment one
Localization method is further limited, and the detailed process of the step 2 is
The safety value of examining system is defined as: if the mistake interaction in examining system integrates as Π, and for examining system
In any one parameter i, i ∈ [1, k], there is vertex (i, si), so that (i, si) it is not included in mistake interaction collection Π's
In any mistake interaction, then claim siFor the point of safes of parameter i, claim the vector (s of the point of safes composition of each parameter of examining system1,
s2,…,sk) be the examining system safety value, in which: k is the number of parameter in examining system；
For a parameter in examining system, the number of point of safes can be with more than one.
The constraint set of examining system is defined as: in an examining system, if the valued combinations of certain parameters to survey
It tries data invalid or influences software to operate normally, then claim the presence of constraint between these parameters, indicated with mark C, these ginsengs
Number is known as constraint, and the corresponding value of parameter is known as obligatory point, and the collection that composition is all constrained in system is collectively referred to as constraint set, about
Constriction CsTo indicate；
Judge that examining system whether there is the process of independence safety value according to the safety value of examining system and constraint set are as follows:
Independence safety value is defined as: for the arbitrary parameter i in examining system, if the set that the point of safes of parameter i forms
ForConstraint set is Cs, enableIn the presence ofIt is not sky, then it will set
The referred to as independence safety value of examining system；Wherein:For intermediate variable.
For the concept that safety value is described in detail, for having there are three the examining system of parameter is inputted, each input parameter
With 0,1,2 three value.As shown in figure 3, tie-portion indicates examining system mistake interaction in figure, mistake is handed in Class1
{ { (2,0), (3,0) }, { (2,1), (3,0) } } each other represent 2 value of factor as 0 and 3 value of factor is 0, factor, 2 values
For 1 and 3 value of factor is 0 two mistake interactions；In type 2 mistake interaction for { (2,0), (3,0) }, { (2,1), (3,0) },
{(1,0),(2,2)}}.In figure, any value of factor 1 is all not included in wrong interaction in Class1, when 2 value of factor is 2
Not by any mistake interaction covering, not by any mistake interaction covering when 3 value of factor is 1 or 2, at this point, the system safety value
As S=(s1,s2,s3), each point of safes value is respectively s1={ 1,2,3 }, s2={ 2 }, s3={ 1,2 }, factor 2 in type 2
Any value by mistake interaction covering, at this point, the parameter be not present point of safes, system be not present safety value.
Mistake interaction integrates as Π's is defined as: if there are a certain interactive I for examining system, so that for arbitrarily covering the interaction
Test case cause software fault, then I be referred to as one mistake interaction.If any proper subclass is not for mistake interaction I
It is wrong interaction, then I is referred to as the minimum mistake interaction of system.
The collection of all minimum mistake interaction compositions of system is collectively referred to as minimum mistake interaction collection, is indicated with Π.If in Π
Each mistake interaction has t element, then is denoted as Πt；If each mistake interaction at most has t element in Π, it is denoted as Πt。
If not specified otherwise, the mistake interaction collection being mentioned herein refers both to minimum mistake interaction collection.If test case T is not covered in Π
It is any mistake interaction, then claim the test case to avoid Π.
Specific embodiment 3: present embodiment is to a kind of combined test failure for supporting constraint described in embodiment two
Localization method is further limited, the detailed process of the step 3 in present embodiment are as follows:
If judging examining system in step 2, there are independence safety values, malfunction test algorithm or adaptive algorithm are utilized
To be combined test failure positioning analysis.
The combined test failure that the common combinations test failure localization method of this field can be applied to present embodiment is fixed
Position.
Specific embodiment 4: illustrating present embodiment in conjunction with Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.Present embodiment is to described in embodiment three
It is a kind of support constraint combined test Fault Locating Method further limited, the tool of the step four in present embodiment
Body process are as follows:
If step 2 judges examining system, there is no the error checking use-cases that independence safety value, selecting step one obtain
Concentrate any error checking use-case T1As current erroneous use-case T, analysis current erroneous use-case T is executed；Execute the specific of analysis
Process is as follows:
Step 4 one, the corresponding non-security parameter set A of initialization current erroneous use-case T, judge the parameter in set A
Whether number is less than or equal to minimum mistake interaction dynamics t；
If the number of parameters in set A is less than or equal to minimum mistake interaction dynamics t, replaced using corresponding point of safes
Non-security parameter in set A, to position minimum mistake interaction；
If the number of parameters in set A is greater than minimum mistake interaction dynamics t, the parameter in set A is divided into t+1
In set, it is denoted as set A respectively1、A2..., At+1；Choose each set Aj, j=1,2 ..., t+1 judge set AjIn
Whether parameter all has independence point of safes；
Step 4 two, independence point of safes is defined as: interaction I, set E are tieed up for a m of examining systemI={ i1,
i2,…,imIt is the corresponding parameter set of interaction I, i1,i2,…,imParameter in respectively interactive I, examining system constraint set are Cs,
For parameter i any in examining systeml,AndAssuming that parameter ilSafe point set beVertex if it existsSo that for any m-1 parameter in interaction I andExamining system is avoided in the m dimension interaction of composition
Constraint set Cs in all constraints, then claimFor parameter ilIndependence point of safes relative to interaction I；
If set AjIn each parameter there are independence point of safes, then using independence point of safes replace set AjIn it is right
Parameter is answered, additional testing use-case T ' is generated；
If set AjIn comprising there is no the parameters of independence point of safes, then obtain there is no independence point of safes parameter
Secure topical point,
Secure topical point is defined as: interaction I is tieed up for given m, for parameter i ∈ [1, k] a certain in examining system,
Vertex (i, ps if it existsi), so that vertex (i, psi) will not cause with the m dimension interaction for interacting any m-1 parameter composition in I
Examining system failure, then claim psiThe secure topical point of interaction I is tieed up relative to m for parameter i；Utilize independence point of safes and part
Point of safes replaces set AjMiddle corresponding parameter generates additional testing use-case T '；
Step 4 three executes the additional testing use-case T ' that step 4 two generates, and judges whether additional testing use-case T ' occurs
Trigger mistake；
If triggering mistake occurs, additional testing use-case T ' is assigned to current erroneous use-case T；
It is selecting that step 1 obtains, except T if not occurring to trigger mistake1Any mistake is surveyed in outer error checking use-case
Example T on probation2, by error checking use-case T2It is assigned to current erroneous use-case T；
Current erroneous use-case T is analyzed as procedure described above to execute；Until all error checking use-cases that step 1 obtains
It executes analysis to complete, orients minimum mistake interaction, that is, complete the positioning of combined test failure.
Non-security set of factors A refers to: the value of factor is the non-security point of corresponding factor in set A.
If independence safety value is not present in examining system, further constraint is needed to handle.
The test case T of an initiation software fault is chosen, it is corresponding to initialize the use-case first in malfunction analysis procedure
Non-security value set of factors；
Then the set is divided into approximately equal t+1 set.For each set of factors, its independence is obtained first
Property point of safes, for the factor of independence point of safes cannot be obtained, using may mistake interaction collection seek secure topical point.
Wherein it is noted that following two points: should disperse as far as possible the factor for not having independence point of safes in grouping process
Into different groupings, the number of nonindependence point of safes when can reduce each replacement in this way, while being easier to obtain part
Point of safes；During seeking secure topical point, acquire if necessary secure topical point because prime number be not more than interaction dynamics, then
Directly using correctly interaction obtains known to system, otherwise, need to consider the influence of the secure topical point acquired.Later, it will survey
Example T on probation carries out safety value replacement on corresponding position, generates additional testing use-case.If additional testing use-case does not trigger event
Barrier then excludes the possibility that non-security value set of factors in the use-case is failure, continues to analyze next test case；Conversely, then will
Additional testing use-case is assigned to T, continues to analyze, until non-security value set of factors number be less than interaction dynamics, obtain minimal error friendship
Mutually.
The process of non-security value factor is replaced using independence point of safes or using independence point of safes and local point of safes
Are as follows: the factor in value sets of factors A, A non-security for one is { i1,i2,…,it, we can use itIndependence peace
Full point or secure topical point replace itValue in set A, to judge { i in set A1,i2,…,it-1Whether software is caused
Failure；And so on, corresponding parameter is replaced in set A using independence point of safes or the secure topical point of more parameters
Value,.
Interactive is defined as: set setWherein: factor ijIt is different,Then this set I is referred to as a t dimension interaction, claims set EI={ i1, i2 ..., itBe
The corresponding set of factors of interaction I.One-dimensional interactionAlso referred to as vertex is abbreviated as
Embodiment
To illustrate this paper algorithm fault location effect in the safety value known system with system restriction, tool is chosen first
There are five for the examining system of parameter, five parameters use { a, b, c, d, e } to indicate respectively, and parameters value is as follows:
A={ a0, a1 }；B={ b0, b1, b2 }；C={ c0, c1 }；D={ d0, d1, d2 }；E={ e0, e1, e2, e3 }；
System restriction is { (b0, d1), (a1, e3), (b2, e2), (c0, d1) }；Mistake interaction (a1, d2), (b2,
e3)}；
Assuming that system safety value is it is known that can generate more than ten tests for the examining system for { a0, b0, c0, d0, e0 }
Use-case chooses a test case of the triggering system failure, such as { a0, b2, c1, d1, e3 }, herein to illustrate in above-mentioned system
Under system constraint, mistake interaction (b2, e3) how is positioned.
In the case where parameter combination of two, for the examining system of five parameters, the grouping plan of 1+2+2 can be used
Slightly, it is respectively to three additional testing use-cases are obtained after every group of carry out safety value replacement respectively:
AddTest11={ a0, b2, c1, d0, e0 }
AddTest12={ a0, b0, c0, d1, e3 }
AddTest13={ a0, b2, c1, d1, e3 }
Wherein, AddTest12 introduces constraint, and directly carrying out additional use-case test, to will lead to use-case invalid, it is therefore desirable into
Row constraint processing.First determine whether it is to constrain since the safety value replacement of b and c causes to introduce, and the two parameters only have value
For 0 point of safes, that is, independence point of safes is not present, so needing to seek its secure topical point respectively.For parameter b,
Since parameter a is safety value in AddTest12, the value set for not constituting the parameter b of constraint with a0 is obtained first, it should be
{ b1, b2 } then can obtain one group of larger correct interaction according to the implementing result of initial stage test case and collect, (b1,
D1), (b1, e3) is both present in correct interaction and concentrates, therefore the secure topical point for obtaining parameter b is b1；Next parameter c is sought
Secure topical point, equally obtain the value set for not constituting the parameter c of constraint with a0 first, then obtained using correct interaction collection
It obtains and b1, d1, e3 constitutes the value of correctly interactive parameter c as c1, thus obtain the additional testing use for supporting constraint
Example AddTest120={ a0, b1, c1, d1, e3 }.According to the implementing result of use-case AddTest120, can obtain without constraint feelings
The identical positioning conclusion of use-case AddTest12 under condition then illustrates that (d1, e3) is correct interaction that is, by test.
It executes AddTest13 to set out failure, illustrate to interact in { b2, c1, d1, e3 } comprising mistake, continue to be grouped, obtain
To following additional testing use-case:
AddTest21={ a0, b0, c1, d1, e3 }
AddTest22={ a0, b2, c0, d1, e3 }
AddTest23={ a0, b2, c1, d0, e0 }
Wherein, AddTest21 introduces constraint, parameter b is replaced with secure topical point b1, implementing result is correct, explanation
Without mistake interaction in { c1, d1, e3 }；AddTest22 equally introduces constraint, and parameter c is replaced with secure topical point c1, executes
As a result mistake illustrates that mistake interaction appears in { b2, d1, e3 }, due to proving that (d1, e3), (b2, d1) are correct hand over before
Mutually, the minimal error interaction therefore in the available use-case is (b2, e3).
For the positioning performance and used system scope for illustrating above-mentioned algorithm, number is interacted in fixed system mistake
In the case of, it is continuously increased system restriction number and is tested, and the constraint to each number, it is more to attempt different constraint combinations
Secondary experiment simultaneously statisticallys analyze, and obtains the determining constraint number of maximum that can be realized positioning in the system (when system restriction number is little
When this value, it is centainly able to achieve accurate positionin；And when system restriction number is greater than this value, it is not necessarily able to achieve accurate positionin,
This with specifically constrain it is related), acquired results are as shown in table 1, when for fixed error interaction, the maximum that can position in canonical system
Constrain number.
Table 1
To further illustrate that the maximum of system support determines the relationship of constraint number and system scale, respectively from system parameter
Two aspects of number and each parameter value number carry out experimental analysis.Firstly, being 10 in each parameter value number of fixed system
In the case where, it is continuously increased number of parameters and carries out many experiments and count, acquired results are as shown in Figure 4；Secondly, in preset parameter
In the case that number is 10, the value number for being continuously increased each parameter carries out many experiments and counts, acquired results such as Fig. 5 institute
Show.
Preset parameter value number supports the maximum of positioning to determine that constraint number reduces with the increase of system parameter number.
This is because the increase of number of parameters causes combined test that the interaction number covered is needed to increase sharply, while test case number
Mesh also increases, but the growth rate of test case is lower than required interactive growth rate.Under conditions of mistake interaction is certain, cause
Possible mistake interaction collection is in large scale, and the correct interactive collection scale that can be used accordingly is relatively small, to a certain extent
The acquisition of secure topical point is limited, so that maximum determine that constraint number reduces.
Fixed system number of parameters supports the maximum of constraint to determine that constraint number increases with the increase of system parameter value number
Add.Although the interaction number that the increase of parameter value number covers needed for equally making increases, the diversification of parameter value will
Expand the parameter value range for avoiding constraint to a greater extent, it is easier to local restriction point is obtained, so that maximum determine about
Beam number increases.
Claims (4)
1. a kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint, which is characterized in that the specific steps of this method are as follows:
Step 1: executing whole test cases of examining system, correct test is obtained according to the implementing result of whole test cases
Set of uses case and error checking set of uses case；
Step 2: according to the safety value and constraint set of examining system, to judge examining system with the presence or absence of independence safety value；
Step 3: if step 2 judges examining system, there are independence safety values, are directly pacified using the independence of examining system
Total head is combined test failure positioning；
Step 4: if step 2 judges examining system, there is no independence safety values, execute the mistake of the acquisition of analytical procedure one
Test case, to be combined test failure positioning.
2. a kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint according to claim 1, which is characterized in that the step
Rapid two detailed process are as follows:
The safety value of examining system is defined as: if the mistake interaction in examining system integrates as Π, and for appointing in examining system
It anticipates parameter i, i a ∈ [1, k], there is vertex (i, si), so that (i, si) it is not included in any of mistake interaction collection Π
In mistake interaction, then claim siFor the point of safes of parameter i, claim the vector (s of the point of safes composition of each parameter of examining system1,s2,…,
sk) be the examining system safety value, in which: k is the number of parameter in examining system；
The constraint set of examining system is defined as: in an examining system, if the valued combinations of certain parameters to test number
It is operated normally according to invalid or influence software, then claims the presence of constraint between these parameters, indicated with mark C, these parameters claim
For constraint, the corresponding value of parameter is known as obligatory point, and the collection that composition is all constrained in system is collectively referred to as constraint set, constraint set
Use CsTo indicate；
Judge that examining system whether there is the process of independence safety value according to the safety value of examining system and constraint set are as follows:
Independence safety value is defined as: for the arbitrary parameter i in examining system, if the set that the point of safes of parameter i forms
ForConstraint set is Cs, enableIn the presence ofIt is not sky, then it will set
The referred to as independence safety value of examining system；Wherein:For intermediate variable.
3. a kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint according to claim 2, which is characterized in that the step
Rapid three detailed process are as follows:
If judge in step 2 examining system there are independence safety value, using malfunction test algorithm or adaptive algorithm come into
Row combined test fault locating analysis.
4. a kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint according to claim 3, which is characterized in that the step
Rapid four detailed process are as follows:
If step 2 judges in the error checking set of uses case that examining system is obtained there is no independence safety value, selecting step one
Any error checking use-case T1As current erroneous use-case T, analysis current erroneous use-case T is executed；Execute the detailed process of analysis
It is as follows:
Step 4 one, the corresponding non-security parameter set A of initialization current erroneous use-case T, judge that the number of parameters in set A is
It is no to be less than or equal to minimum mistake interaction dynamics t；
If the number of parameters in set A is less than or equal to minimum mistake interaction dynamics t, corresponding point of safes replacement set is utilized
Non-security parameter in A, to position minimum mistake interaction；
If the number of parameters in set A is greater than minimum mistake interaction dynamics t, the parameter in set A is divided into t+1 set
In, it is denoted as set A respectively1、A2..., At+1；Choose each set Aj, j=1,2 ..., t+1 judge set AjIn parameter
Whether independence point of safes all there is；
Step 4 two, independence point of safes is defined as: interaction I, set E are tieed up for a m of examining systemI={ i1,
i2,…,imIt is the corresponding parameter set of interaction I, i1,i2,…,imParameter in respectively interactive I, examining system constraint set are Cs,
For parameter i any in examining systeml, il∈ [1, k] andAssuming that parameter ilSafe point set beIt pushes up if it exists
PointSo that for any m-1 parameter in interaction I andSystem to be measured is avoided in the m dimension interaction of composition
All constraints in the constraint set Cs of system, then claimFor parameter ilIndependence point of safes relative to interaction I；
If set AjIn each parameter there are independence point of safes, then using independence point of safes replace set AjMiddle corresponding ginseng
Number generates additional testing use-case T '；
If set AjIn comprising there is no independence point of safes parameter, then obtain be not present independence point of safes parameter part
Point of safes,
Secure topical point is defined as: interaction I is tieed up for given m, for parameter i ∈ [1, k] a certain in examining system, if depositing
In vertex (i, psi), so that vertex (i, psi) with interact in I the m dimension that any m-1 parameter is constituted interact will not cause it is to be measured
The system failure then claims psiThe secure topical point of interaction I is tieed up relative to m for parameter i；Utilize independence point of safes and secure topical
Point replacement set AjMiddle corresponding parameter generates additional testing use-case T '；
Step 4 three executes the additional testing use-case T ' that step 4 two generates, and judges whether additional testing use-case T ' triggers
Mistake；
If triggering mistake occurs, additional testing use-case T ' is assigned to current erroneous use-case T；
It is selecting that step 1 obtains, except T if not occurring to trigger mistake1Any error checking use-case in outer error checking use-case
T2, by error checking use-case T2It is assigned to current erroneous use-case T；
Current erroneous use-case T is analyzed as procedure described above to execute；Until all error checking use-cases that step 1 obtains execute
Analysis is completed, and is oriented minimum mistake interaction, that is, is completed the positioning of combined test failure.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201810738553.5A CN109032932B (en) | 2018-07-06 | 2018-07-06 | Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201810738553.5A CN109032932B (en) | 2018-07-06 | 2018-07-06 | Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN109032932A true CN109032932A (en) | 2018-12-18 |
| CN109032932B CN109032932B (en) | 2021-08-31 |
Family
ID=64641723
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201810738553.5A Active CN109032932B (en) | 2018-07-06 | 2018-07-06 | Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN109032932B (en) |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111680725A (en) * | 2020-05-28 | 2020-09-18 | 哈尔滨工业大学 | Gas sensor array multi-fault isolation algorithm based on reconstruction contribution |
| CN118170690A (en) * | 2024-05-14 | 2024-06-11 | 南京大学 | Combined test multi-fault positioning method based on to-be-determined tuple |
Citations (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN104050086A (en) * | 2014-07-01 | 2014-09-17 | 南京邮电大学 | Error locating method based on combinatorial testing |
| US20170116106A1 (en) * | 2013-08-29 | 2017-04-27 | International Business Machines Corporation | Testing of combined code changesets in a software product |
-
2018
- 2018-07-06 CN CN201810738553.5A patent/CN109032932B/en active Active
Patent Citations (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20170116106A1 (en) * | 2013-08-29 | 2017-04-27 | International Business Machines Corporation | Testing of combined code changesets in a software product |
| CN104050086A (en) * | 2014-07-01 | 2014-09-17 | 南京邮电大学 | Error locating method based on combinatorial testing |
Non-Patent Citations (1)
| Title |
|---|
| 王建峰 等: ""基于错误交互集的组合测试软件故障定位方法"", 《电子学报》 * |
Cited By (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111680725A (en) * | 2020-05-28 | 2020-09-18 | 哈尔滨工业大学 | Gas sensor array multi-fault isolation algorithm based on reconstruction contribution |
| CN111680725B (en) * | 2020-05-28 | 2023-05-05 | 哈尔滨工业大学 | Gas sensor array multi-fault isolation algorithm based on reconstruction contribution |
| CN118170690A (en) * | 2024-05-14 | 2024-06-11 | 南京大学 | Combined test multi-fault positioning method based on to-be-determined tuple |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN109032932B (en) | 2021-08-31 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Wong et al. | A family of code coverage-based heuristics for effective fault localization | |
| EP1899876B1 (en) | System and method for using model analysis to generate directed test vectors | |
| CN102750223B (en) | A kind of location of mistake method based on object-oriented program section spectrum | |
| EP2975527A2 (en) | A method for tracing computer software | |
| CN106598850B (en) | A kind of location of mistake method based on program failure clustering | |
| CN105468517B (en) | A kind of mistake of statistics localization method based on Black-box testing Cases yojan | |
| Gong et al. | Diversity maximization speedup for fault localization | |
| CN109032932A (en) | A kind of combined test Fault Locating Method for supporting constraint | |
| CN104572474B (en) | A kind of lightweight location of mistake Implementation Technology based on Dynamic Slicing | |
| Hooda et al. | A review: study of test case generation techniques | |
| Angelopoulos et al. | Identifying and correcting bias from time-and severity-dependent reporting rates in the estimation of the covid-19 case fatality rate | |
| US11194703B2 (en) | System testing infrastructure for analyzing soft failures in active environment | |
| KR101940486B1 (en) | Low cost apparatus and method for error-based program testing | |
| Nishiura et al. | Improving faulty interaction localization using logistic regression | |
| Ammar et al. | Enhanced weighted method for test case prioritization in regression testing using unique priority value | |
| Dutta et al. | Effective fault localization using an ensemble classifier | |
| US11132286B1 (en) | Dynamic reordering of test case execution | |
| US11609842B2 (en) | System testing infrastructure for analyzing and preventing soft failure in active environment | |
| CN107133168B (en) | Event sequence fault positioning method | |
| US11593256B2 (en) | System testing infrastructure for detecting soft failure in active environment | |
| CN108959091B (en) | Event sequence fault positioning method supporting constraint | |
| AU2021103087A4 (en) | Big data testing method and system | |
| Friedrichs et al. | A comparison infrastructure for fault characterization algorithms | |
| Lian et al. | A new fault localizing method for the program debugging process | |
| CN109815133A (en) | A kind of method for testing software, calculates equipment and computer storage medium at device |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |