CN109032932B - Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method - Google Patents

Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN109032932B
CN109032932B CN201810738553.5A CN201810738553A CN109032932B CN 109032932 B CN109032932 B CN 109032932B CN 201810738553 A CN201810738553 A CN 201810738553A CN 109032932 B CN109032932 B CN 109032932B
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
tested
test
parameters
error
interaction
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.)
Active
Application number
CN201810738553.5A
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Other versions
CN109032932A (en
Inventor
魏长安
许永辉
杨京礼
姜守达
张雨
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Harbin Institute of Technology
Original Assignee
Harbin Institute of Technology
Priority date (The priority date 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 date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Harbin Institute of Technology filed Critical Harbin Institute of Technology
Priority to CN201810738553.5A priority Critical patent/CN109032932B/en
Publication of CN109032932A publication Critical patent/CN109032932A/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of CN109032932B publication Critical patent/CN109032932B/en
Active legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

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 combined test fault positioning method supporting constraint is used in the technical field of software test. The invention solves the problem that the traditional software combination test fault positioning method does not consider the influence of parameter constraint limitation in combination test on fault positioning. According to the method, the error test cases of the system are obtained according to the execution results of all the test cases, then whether the system to be tested has an independence safety value or not is judged, and finally, the combined test fault is positioned according to the judgment result of the independence safety value; compared with the traditional fault positioning method for the combined test, the fault positioning method considers the influence of parameter constraint limitation on fault positioning in the combined test, so that the method has wider application range and stronger practicability, and overcomes the limitation of the prior art. The invention can be applied to the technical field of software testing.

Description

Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method
Technical Field
The invention belongs to the technical field of software testing, and particularly relates to a constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method.
Background
After the software test finds the fault, developers need to find out the cause of the fault, namely, software fault location is carried out, and then the developers can go deep into the code to carry out fault repair through the fault location result.
In a software combination test, it is generally assumed that values of input parameters are not influenced by each other, but in an actual software system, a parameter constraint phenomenon generally exists, which causes that some parameter value combinations or input sequences are meaningless or even invalid, and a traditional software combination test fault location method is researched based on internal structure information of software or based on software rerun, and influence of parameter constraint limitation on fault location in the combination test is not considered.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to solve the problem that the influence of parameter constraint limitation in combination test on fault positioning is not considered in the traditional software combination test fault positioning method.
The technical scheme adopted by the invention for solving the technical problems is as follows:
a combined test fault positioning method supporting constraint comprises the following specific steps:
step one, executing all test cases of a system to be tested, and acquiring a correct test case set and an incorrect test case set according to execution results of all test cases;
step two, judging whether the system to be tested has an independent safety value according to the safety value and the constraint set of the system to be tested;
step three, if the independence safety value of the system to be tested is judged to exist in the step two, the independence safety value of the system to be tested is directly utilized to carry out combination test fault positioning;
step four, if the system to be tested is judged to have no independent safety value in the step two, the error test case obtained in the step one is executed and analyzed to carry out combined test fault positioning;
the invention has the beneficial effects that: the invention provides a combined test fault positioning method supporting constraint, which comprises the steps of firstly obtaining error test cases of a system according to execution results of all the test cases, then judging whether an independence safety value exists in the system to be tested, and finally performing combined test fault positioning according to a judgment result of the independence safety value; compared with the traditional fault positioning method for the combined test, the fault positioning method considers the influence of parameter constraint limitation on fault positioning in the combined test, so that the method has wider application range and stronger practicability, and overcomes the limitation of the prior art.
The method of the invention plays a good role in positioning the combined test fault of the software system.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a main flow chart of a constraint-supported combinational test fault location method according to the present invention;
FIG. 2 is a flowchart of executing and analyzing an error test case according to the constraint-supported combinational test fault location method of the present invention;
FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of two different types of error interactions;
FIG. 4 is a graph of the number of system parameters versus the number of maximum deterministic constraints, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention;
fig. 5 is a graph showing a relationship between the number of values of the system parameter and the maximum determination constraint number according to the embodiment of the present invention.
Detailed Description
The technical solution of the present invention is further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings, but not limited thereto, and any modification or equivalent replacement of the technical solution of the present invention without departing from the spirit and scope of the technical solution of the present invention shall be covered by the protection scope of the present invention.
The first embodiment is as follows: this embodiment will be described with reference to fig. 1. The method for positioning a fault of a combination test supporting constraint in the embodiment includes the following specific steps:
step one, executing all test cases of a system to be tested, and acquiring a correct test case set and an incorrect test case set according to execution results of all test cases;
step two, judging whether the system to be tested has an independent safety value according to the safety value and the constraint set of the system to be tested;
step three, if the independence safety value of the system to be tested is judged to exist in the step two, the independence safety value of the system to be tested is directly utilized to carry out combination test fault positioning;
and step four, if the system to be tested is judged to have no independent safety value in the step two, the error test case obtained in the step one is executed and analyzed to carry out combined test fault positioning.
The second embodiment is as follows: the embodiment further defines the constraint-supported combination test fault location method described in the first embodiment, and the specific process of the second step is
The safety value of the system under test is defined as: if the error interaction set in the system to be tested is pi, and for any parameter i, i belongs to [1, k ] in the system to be tested]All have a vertex (i, s)i) Such that (i, s)i) Is not included in any error interaction of the set of error interactions Π, then s is callediAs a safety point for the parameter i,weighing the vector(s) formed by the safety points of the parameters of the system to be tested1,s2,…,sk) Is the safety value of the system to be tested, wherein: k is the number of parameters in the system to be tested;
the number of security points may be more than one for one parameter in the system under test.
The constraint set of the system under test is defined as: in a system to be tested, if the value combination of some parameters makes the test data invalid or affects the normal operation of software, it is said that there are constraints between these parameters, which are represented by symbol C, these parameters are called constraint factors, the corresponding values of the parameters are called constraint points, the set formed by all the constraints in the system is called constraint set, and the constraint set is called constraint set by CsTo represent;
the process of judging whether the system to be tested has the independence safety value according to the safety value and the constraint set of the system to be tested is as follows:
the independence security value is defined as: for any parameter i in the system to be tested, the set formed by the safety points of the parameter i is
Figure BDA0001722643360000031
Constraint set is CsLet us order
Figure BDA0001722643360000032
Exist of
Figure BDA0001722643360000035
If not, the set is
Figure BDA0001722643360000033
Called the independence safety value of the system to be tested; wherein:
Figure BDA0001722643360000034
is an intermediate variable.
To illustrate the concept of the safety value in detail, a system to be tested having three input parameters is taken as an example, and each input parameter has three values of 0, 1 and 2. As shown in FIG. 3, the connection line part in the figure represents the error interaction of the system under test, and the error interaction in type 1The method comprises the following steps of (1), (2,0), (3,0) }, { (2,1), (3,0) }, which represent two error interactions, namely that the value of a factor 2 is 0, the value of a factor 3 is 0, the value of the factor 2 is 1 and the value of the factor 3 is 0; error interactions in type 2 are { (2,0), (3,0) }, { (2,1), (3,0) }, { (1,0), (2,2) }. In the figure, any value of the factor 1 in the type 1 is not included in the error interaction, the factor 2 is not covered by any error interaction when the value is 2, and the factor 3 is not covered by any error interaction when the value is 1 or 2, at this time, the system safety value is S ═ S (S ═ S1,s2,s3) Each safety point value is s1＝{1,2,3},s2＝{2},s3Any value of the factor 2 in the type 2 is covered by error interaction, and at this time, there is no safe point for the parameter and no safe value for the system.
The definition of the set of error interactions as Π is: if a certain interaction I exists in the system to be tested, so that software faults are caused to any test case covering the interaction, the I is called as an error interaction. If any proper subset of the error interactions I is not error interactions, the I is called the minimum error interaction of the system.
The set formed by all the minimal error interactions of the system is called a minimal error interaction set and is represented by pi. If there are t elements for each error interaction in Π, then it is recorded as Πt(ii) a If there are at most t elements interacted by each error in Π, then it is recorded as Πt. Unless otherwise specified, the set of erroneous interactions referred to herein refers to a set of very small erroneous interactions. If the test case T does not cover any error interaction in Π, the test case is said to avoid Π.
The third concrete implementation mode: the present embodiment further defines the constraint-supported combination test fault location method described in the second embodiment, and the specific process of the step three in the present embodiment is as follows:
and if the independence safety value of the system to be tested is judged in the second step, performing combined test fault positioning analysis by using a fault debugging algorithm or a self-adaptive algorithm.
Common combined test fault location methods in the field can be applied to combined test fault location of the present embodiment.
The fourth concrete implementation mode: the present embodiment will be described with reference to fig. 1 and 2. The third embodiment further defines the constraint-supported combination test fault location method, and the specific process of the fourth step in the third embodiment is as follows:
if the second step judges that the system to be tested does not have the independence safety value, any error test case T in the error test case set obtained in the first step is selected1As a current error case T, executing and analyzing the current error case T; the specific procedure for performing the analysis is as follows:
initializing a non-safety point parameter set A corresponding to the current error case T, and judging whether the number of parameters in the set A is less than or equal to the minimum error interaction strength T;
if the number of the parameters in the set A is less than or equal to the minimum error interaction strength t, replacing the non-safety point parameters in the set A by using the corresponding safety points to position the minimum error interaction;
if the number of the parameters in the set A is larger than the minimum error interaction strength t, dividing the parameters in the set A into t +1 sets, and respectively recording the t +1 sets as a set A1、A2、…，At+1(ii) a Selecting each set AjJ is 1,2, …, t +1, decision set ajWhether there are independence security points for all the parameters in (1);
step four and step two, the definition of the independence safety point is as follows: for an m-dimensional interaction I of the system under test, set EI＝{i1,i2,…,imIs the parameter set corresponding to the interaction I, I1,i2,…,imRespectively are parameters in the interaction I, and the constraint set of the system to be tested is CsFor any parameter i in the system under testl，
Figure BDA0001722643360000041
And is
Figure BDA0001722643360000042
Let a parameter ilSet of security points of
Figure BDA0001722643360000043
If there is a vertex
Figure BDA0001722643360000044
So that for any m-1 parameters in interaction I
Figure BDA0001722643360000045
All the constraints in the constraint set Cs of the system to be tested are avoided by the formed m-dimensional interaction, and the system is called
Figure BDA0001722643360000046
Is a parameter ilAn independence security point with respect to interaction I;
if set AjIf there is an independence security point in each parameter, the set A is replaced by the independence security pointjGenerating an additional test case T' according to the corresponding parameters;
if set AjIf the parameters of the independent safety points do not exist, the local safety points of which the parameters of the independent safety points do not exist are obtained,
the definition of the local security point is: for a given m-dimensional interaction I, for a certain parameter I E [1, k ] in the system to be tested]If there is a vertex (i, ps)i) Such that the vertex (i, ps)i) The m-dimensional interaction formed by any m-1 parameters in the interaction I can not cause the fault of the system to be tested, so that ps is callediLocal safety points of the parameter I relative to the m-dimensional interaction I; replacing set A with independent Security Point and local Security PointjGenerating an additional test case T' according to the corresponding parameters;
step three, executing the additional test case T 'generated in the step two, and judging whether the additional test case T' generates a trigger error;
if the trigger error occurs, assigning an additional test case T' to the current error case T;
if no trigger error occurs, selecting the value obtained in the first step, dividing T1Any error test case T in external error test cases2Test case T will be faulty2Assigning a current error case T;
analyzing the current error case T according to the process; and (4) positioning the minimum error interaction until all the error test cases obtained in the step one are executed and analyzed, namely positioning the combined test fault.
The non-safety point factor set A refers to: and the value of the factor in the set A is the non-safety point of the corresponding factor.
If the system to be tested does not have an independence safety value, further constraint processing is needed.
Selecting a test case T which causes software faults, and initializing a non-safety value factor set corresponding to the case in the fault analysis process;
the set is then divided into approximately equal t +1 sets. For each factor set, firstly, the independent safety points are obtained, and for the factors which can not obtain the independent safety points, the local safety points are obtained by utilizing the possible error interaction set.
Two points are noted: factors without the independent safety points are dispersed into different groups as much as possible in the grouping process, so that the number of the non-independent safety points in each replacement can be reduced, and meanwhile, local safety points are easier to obtain; in the process of obtaining the local safety points, if the number of factors needing to obtain the local safety points is not greater than the interaction strength, the known correct interaction of the system is directly used for obtaining, otherwise, the influence of the obtained local safety points needs to be considered. And then, carrying out safety value replacement on the test case T at a corresponding position to generate an additional test case. If the additional test case does not trigger the fault, eliminating the possibility that the non-safety value factor set in the case is the fault, and continuously analyzing the next test case; and otherwise, assigning the additional test case to T, and continuing to analyze until the number of the non-safety value factor sets is smaller than the interaction strength to obtain the minimum error interaction.
The process of replacing the factor of the non-safety value by the independent safety point or the independent safety point and the local safety point is as follows: for an insecure value factor set A, the factors in A are { i }1,i2,…,itWe can use itIndependent security point or bureauReplacement of i with a security pointtValues in set A to determine { i ] in set A1,i2,…,it-1Whether a software failure is caused; and so on, replacing the value of the corresponding parameter in the set A with the independent security point or the local security point of more parameters.
The definition of interaction is: device set
Figure BDA0001722643360000051
Wherein: factor ijAre different from each other in that,
Figure BDA0001722643360000052
this set I is called a t-dimensional interaction, and the set EI is called { I1, I2, …, I ═ ItAnd the factor set corresponding to the interaction I. One dimensional interaction
Figure BDA0001722643360000053
Also called a vertex, abbreviated as
Figure BDA0001722643360000054
Examples
To illustrate the effect of the algorithm in locating a fault in a system with a known safety value and system constraints, a system to be tested with five parameters is first selected as an example, the five parameters are respectively represented by { a, b, c, d, e }, and the values of the parameters are as follows:
a＝{a0,a1}；b＝{b0,b1,b2}；c＝{c0,c1}；d＝{d0,d1,d2}；e＝{e0,e1,e2,e3}；
system constraints are { (b0, d1), (a1, e3), (b2, e2), (c0, d1) }; error interaction { (a1, d2), (b2, e3) };
assuming that the system safety value is known as { a0, b0, c0, d0, e0}, for the system under test, ten test cases are generated, and one test case triggering system fault, such as { a0, b2, c1, d1, e3}, is selected here to explain how to locate error interaction under the system constraint (b2, e 3).
Under the condition that every two parameters are combined, aiming at a system to be tested of five parameters, a 1+2+2 grouping strategy can be adopted, and three additional test cases are obtained after each group is respectively replaced by a safety value, wherein the three additional test cases are respectively as follows:
AddTest11＝{a0,b2,c1,d0,e0}
AddTest12＝{a0,b0,c0,d1,e3}
AddTest13＝{a0,b2,c1,d1,e3}
in addition, AddTest12 introduces constraints, and direct additional use case tests result in invalid use cases, so that constraint processing is required. Firstly, it is determined that the introduced constraint is caused by the replacement of the safety values of b and c, and the two parameters only have one safety point with a value of 0, that is, there is no independent safety point, so that local safety points of the two parameters need to be respectively solved. For the parameter b, as the parameter a in AddTest12 is a safety value, firstly, a value set of the parameter b which does not form a constraint with a0 is obtained, and the value set should be { b1, b2}, then a group of large-scale correct interaction sets (b1, d1), (b1, e3) are obtained according to an execution result of the test case at the initial stage, and therefore a local safety point of the parameter b is b 1; then, local security points of the parameter c are obtained, a value set of the parameter c which does not form constraint with a0 is obtained, and then a value of the parameter c which forms correct interaction with b1, d1 and e3 is obtained as c1 by using a correct interaction set, so that an additional test case AddTest120 which supports constraint is obtained as { a0, b1, c1, d1 and e3 }. According to the execution result of the use case AddTest120, the same positioning conclusion of the use case AddTest12 under the unconstrained condition can be obtained, namely, the correct interaction is indicated (d1, e3) through the test.
AddSt 13 is executed to start fault, which indicates that the { b2, c1, d1, e3} contains error interaction, and grouping is continued to obtain the following additional test cases:
AddTest21＝{a0,b0,c1,d1,e3}
AddTest22＝{a0,b2,c0,d1,e3}
AddTest23＝{a0,b2,c1,d0,e0}
AddSt 21 introduces constraints, replaces the parameter b with a local safety point b1, and has correct execution result, which indicates that no error interaction exists in { c1, d1, e3 }; AddSt 22 also introduces constraints, replaces parameter c with local safety point c1, executes result error, and shows that error interaction occurs in { b2, d1, e3}, since (d1, e3), (b2, d1) are proved to be correct interaction before, the minimum error interaction in the use case can be obtained as (b2, e 3).
To illustrate the positioning performance of the above algorithm and the range of the system used, under the condition of fixing the number of erroneous interactions of the system, the number of constraints of the system is continuously increased to perform experiments, and for each number of constraints, different constraint combinations are tried to perform multiple experiments and statistical analysis, so as to obtain the maximum determined constraint number capable of realizing positioning in the system (when the number of constraints of the system is not greater than the value, accurate positioning must be realized, and when the number of constraints of the system is greater than the value, accurate positioning cannot be realized, which is related to specific constraints), and the obtained result is shown in table 1, which is the maximum constraint number capable of positioning in a typical system when erroneous interactions are fixed.
TABLE 1
Figure BDA0001722643360000071
In order to further explain the relationship between the maximum determination constraint number supported by the system and the system scale, experimental analysis is respectively carried out on the two aspects of the number of system parameters and the number of values of each parameter. Firstly, under the condition that the value number of each parameter of a fixed system is 10, continuously increasing the number of the parameters to carry out a plurality of experiments and statistics, and obtaining results as shown in figure 4; secondly, under the condition that the number of the fixed parameters is 10, the number of the values of each parameter is continuously increased to carry out a plurality of experiments and statistics, and the obtained result is shown in fig. 5.
The number of the values of the fixed parameters is fixed, and the maximum determination constraint number supporting positioning is reduced along with the increase of the number of the parameters of the system. This is because the number of interactions to be covered by the combination test increases rapidly due to the increase in the number of parameters, and the number of test cases also increases, but the growth rate of the test cases is lower than the required interaction growth rate. Under the condition of certain error interaction, the scale of a possible error interaction set is huge, the scale of a corresponding available correct interaction set is relatively small, and the acquisition of local safety points is limited to a certain extent, so that the maximum determination constraint number is reduced.
The number of system parameters is fixed, and the maximum determination constraint number supporting the constraint is increased along with the increase of the value number of the system parameters. Although the number of the interaction to be covered is increased by increasing the number of the parameter values, the range of the parameter values for avoiding the constraint is expanded to a greater extent by diversification of the parameter values, and the local constraint points are easier to obtain, so that the maximum number of the determined constraints is increased.

Claims (3)

1. A combined test fault positioning method supporting constraint is characterized by comprising the following specific steps:
step one, executing all test cases of a system to be tested, and acquiring a correct test case set and an incorrect test case set according to execution results of all test cases;
step two, judging whether the system to be tested has an independent safety value according to the safety value and the constraint set of the system to be tested;
the specific process of the second step is as follows:
the safety value of the system under test is defined as: if the error interaction set in the system to be tested is pi, and for any parameter i, i belongs to [1, k ] in the system to be tested]All have a vertex (i, s)i) Such that (i, s)i) Is not included in any error interaction of the set of error interactions Π, then s is callediThe safety point of the parameter i is called a vector(s) formed by the safety points of all parameters of the system to be tested1,s2,…,sk) Is the safety value of the system to be tested, wherein: k is the number of parameters in the system to be tested;
the constraint set of the system under test is defined as: in a system to be tested, if the value combination of some parameters makes the test data invalid or affects the normal operation of software, it is said that there are constraints between these parameters, which are represented by symbol C, these parameters are called constraint factors, the corresponding values of the parameters are called constraint points, the set formed by all the constraints in the system is called constraint set, and the constraint set is called constraint set by CsTo represent;
the process of judging whether the system to be tested has the independence safety value according to the safety value and the constraint set of the system to be tested is as follows:
the independence security value is defined as: for any parameter i in the system to be tested, the set formed by the safety points of the parameter i is
Figure FDA0003155819870000011
Constraint set is CsLet us order
Figure FDA0003155819870000012
Exist of
Figure FDA0003155819870000013
If not, the set is
Figure FDA0003155819870000014
Called the independence safety value of the system to be tested; wherein:
Figure FDA0003155819870000015
is an intermediate variable;
step three, if the independence safety value of the system to be tested is judged to exist in the step two, the independence safety value of the system to be tested is directly utilized to carry out combination test fault positioning;
and step four, if the system to be tested is judged to have no independent safety value in the step two, the error test case obtained in the step one is executed and analyzed to carry out combined test fault positioning.
2. The method for positioning faults of combination test supporting constraints according to claim 1, wherein the specific process of the third step is as follows:
and if the independence safety value of the system to be tested is judged in the second step, performing combined test fault positioning analysis by using a fault debugging algorithm or a self-adaptive algorithm.
3. The method for positioning faults of combination test supporting constraints according to claim 2, wherein the specific process of the fourth step is as follows:
if the second step judges that the system to be tested does not have the independence safety value, any error test case T in the error test case set obtained in the first step is selected1As a current error case T, executing and analyzing the current error case T; the specific procedure for performing the analysis is as follows:
initializing a non-safety point parameter set A corresponding to the current error case T, and judging whether the number of parameters in the set A is less than or equal to the minimum error interaction strength T;
if the number of the parameters in the set A is less than or equal to the minimum error interaction strength t, replacing the non-safety point parameters in the set A by using the corresponding safety points to position the minimum error interaction;
if the number of the parameters in the set A is larger than the minimum error interaction strength t, dividing the parameters in the set A into t +1 sets, and respectively recording the t +1 sets as a set A1、A2、…，At+1(ii) a Selecting each set AjJ is 1,2, …, t +1, decision set ajWhether there are independence security points for all the parameters in (1);
step four and step two, the definition of the independence safety point is as follows: for an m-dimensional interaction I of the system under test, set EI＝{i1,i2,…,imIs the parameter set corresponding to the interaction I, I1,i2,…,imRespectively are parameters in the interaction I, and the constraint set of the system to be tested is CsFor any parameter i in the system under testl，il∈[1,k]And is
Figure FDA0003155819870000021
Let a parameter ilSet of security points of
Figure FDA0003155819870000022
If there is a vertex
Figure FDA0003155819870000023
So that for any m-1 parameters in interaction I
Figure FDA0003155819870000024
All the constraints in the constraint set Cs of the system to be tested are avoided by the formed m-dimensional interaction, and the system is called
Figure FDA0003155819870000025
Is a parameter ilAn independence security point with respect to interaction I;
if set AjIf there is an independence security point in each parameter, the set A is replaced by the independence security pointjGenerating an additional test case T' according to the corresponding parameters;
if set AjIf the parameters of the independent safety points do not exist, the local safety points of which the parameters of the independent safety points do not exist are obtained,
the definition of the local security point is: for a given m-dimensional interaction I, for a certain parameter I E [1, k ] in the system to be tested]If there is a vertex (i, ps)i) Such that the vertex (i, ps)i) The m-dimensional interaction formed by any m-1 parameters in the interaction I can not cause the fault of the system to be tested, so that ps is callediLocal safety points of the parameter I relative to the m-dimensional interaction I; replacing set A with independent Security Point and local Security PointjGenerating an additional test case T' according to the corresponding parameters;
step three, executing the additional test case T 'generated in the step two, and judging whether the additional test case T' generates a trigger error;
if the trigger error occurs, assigning an additional test case T' to the current error case T;
if no trigger error occurs, selecting the value obtained in the first step, dividing T1Any error test case T in external error test cases2Test case T will be faulty2Assigning a current error case T;
analyzing the current error case T according to the process; and (4) positioning the minimum error interaction until all the error test cases obtained in the step one are executed and analyzed, namely positioning the combined test fault.
CN201810738553.5A 2018-07-06 2018-07-06 Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method Active CN109032932B (en)

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 CN109032932A (en) 2018-12-18
CN109032932B true 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)

Families Citing this family (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
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
CN118170690B (en) * 2024-05-14 2024-08-20 南京大学 Combined test multi-fault positioning method based on to-be-determined tuple

Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
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

Family Cites Families (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB2517717A (en) * 2013-08-29 2015-03-04 Ibm Testing of combined code changesets in a software product

Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
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

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
"基于错误交互集的组合测试软件故障定位方法";王建峰 等;《电子学报》;20140615;第1175页 *

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN109032932A (en) 2018-12-18

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US6173440B1 (en) Method and apparatus for debugging, verifying and validating computer software
US20220182406A1 (en) Analysis apparatus, analysis system, analysis method, and non-transitory computer readable medium storing program
US8276123B1 (en) Adaptive regression test selection within testing environments
Ghandehari et al. A combinatorial testing-based approach to fault localization
US9075911B2 (en) System and method for usage pattern analysis and simulation
Wang et al. Automated path generation for software fault localization
US9639454B2 (en) Computer-readable recording medium storing therein test data generating program, test data generating method, test data generating apparatus and information processing system
US10936474B2 (en) Software test program generation
CN109032932B (en) Constraint-supported combined test fault positioning method
US9047260B2 (en) Model-based testing of a graphical user interface
CN108572895B (en) Stability test method for automatically checking software and hardware configuration under Linux
US7124383B2 (en) Integrated proof flow system and method
US20150193617A1 (en) Signature verification device, signature verification method, and program
CN111241766B (en) Test method and test system
CN109002723B (en) Sectional type symbol execution method
Bodhe et al. Diagnostic Fail Data Minimization Using an $ N $-Cover Algorithm
US20220138092A1 (en) Computer-implemented method and device for selecting a fuzzing method for testing a program code
EP2820547B1 (en) Debugging method and computer program product
CN112783705B (en) Test method, device, system, chip and electronic equipment
CN111949555B (en) Random test method and device based on multi-dimensional vector and rule script
JP4831375B2 (en) Verification device, verification method, and program
Adler et al. Revision debug with non-linear version history in regression verification
US7689399B1 (en) Automatic extraction of design properties
Pomeranz Multicycle tests with fault detection test data for improved logic diagnosis
US7475369B1 (en) Eliminate false passing of circuit verification through automatic detecting of over-constraining in formal verification

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