KR20100136773A - Method for determining test alternation factor in robot software white box test and automated testing system - Google Patents

Abstract

PURPOSE: A method for determining a test alternation factor for a robot software white box test and an automatic testing system are provided to execute a test as much as the number of needs without testing a combination of all factors. CONSTITUTION: A source recognizing module(102) recognizes a test target function in a source code inputted by a user. A factor pattern analyzing module(103) determines a test alternation factor number from the mutual relation between test factors of the test target function. A test case generating module(104) generates a test case by a combination of the test factor according to the test alternation factor number. The factor pattern analyzing module determines a test alternation factor number of timing when analyzing the test target function ends as a final test alternation factor number.

Description

METHOD FOR DETERMINING TEST ALTERNATION FACTOR IN ROBOT SOFTWARE WHITE BOX TEST AND AUTOMATED TESTING SYSTEM}

Embodiments of the present invention relate to a method for determining test alternating strength and to an automated test system for increasing the reliability of a test when applying unit tests to robot software.

As software becomes more complex and ever-changing, the demand for software testing is becoming increasingly complex and difficult. In general, a test type of software is a unit test for testing in units of software, an integration test for testing in units of integration, or a system test for testing in system units. Test). The test of the software is performed in the form of simulating software by assigning various variables to a test program for testing the function of the software.

Here, the unit test is a method of determining the minimum module of the software to be tested, separating the determined minimum module from the rest of the code, and testing whether the separated minimum module operates correctly as expected. The integration test (integration test) is a test method in which the unit test is logically extended. The simplest form of integration test is to combine two units that have already been tested into one component and test the interface between the two units. That is, the integration test is a test method for identifying a problem that occurs when units are combined. On the other hand, the system test is a test method for each system unit, which is an overall test method executed after testing of individual software programs. Here, the system test may test not only a program test but also a part where the user directly uses the system.

However, these software tests are performed in a completely manual way, in which the user must separately define all the variables, sub-functions, etc. used to select and test the test type of software, and create a test case.

Meanwhile, in the field of robot software as well, as software technology advances, the burden on software verification increases and costs increase. In the case of robot software, since it may be related to human safety, very high stability and reliability are required. The first thing to do when testing software will be unit testing each software module. This is done for all the code you develop, which takes a very long time if you consider all the combinations of values that are passed as test arguments. Therefore, instead of testing all the combinations, the combination of correlated factors is tested centrally, and only the developer knows how many alternating factors to test. In the software test by the conventional method, the number of alternating strengths of the factors can be said to be heuristic.

An embodiment of the present invention provides a method of determining alternating strength of a robot software test that can save time and cost of a test by performing a test as necessary without testing a combination of all factors when applying a unit test of the robot software.

One embodiment of the present invention provides an automated test system for robot software that can automatically generate an optimal test case without generating a test case of all combinations of factors by using the alternating strength determination method of the robot software test.

An automated test system for robot software according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a source recognition module for recognizing a test target function from a source code input by a user; A factor pattern analysis module for determining a number of test alternating intensities from correlations between test factors of the test target function; And a test case generation module generating a test case with a combination of the test factors according to the number of test alternating strengths.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, a method for determining test alternating strength for unit test of robot software is a method for determining test alternating strength of an automated test system including a source recognition module and a factor pattern analysis module. Recognizing a test target function in the input source code; And determining, by the factor pattern analysis module, a number of test alternating strengths from correlations between test factors of the test target function.

In the embodiment of the present invention, the determining of the test alternating intensity number may include: analyzing the correlation between the test factors in the test object function; and if the test factor in the correlation is found, the test alternating intensity number may be determined. And increasing the number of test alternating strengths at the end of the analysis of the test target function as the final number of test alternating strengths.

In an embodiment of the present invention, the interrelationship between the test factors is a simultaneous use relationship in which two or more different test factors are used together in one sentence, an optional use relationship selectively used in one sentence of two or more different test factors, and mutually A statement in which one test argument of one or more of the other test arguments is used, and a dependency relationship in which another test argument is used in subsequent statements, and another one in a block statement after one test argument of two or more different test arguments. The test argument of contains the containment relationship used.

In one embodiment of the present invention, the interrelationship between the test factors directly affects a return value of the test target function or a combination of at least two of the simultaneous use, selective use, dependency, and containment relationships. Note includes more relationships.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, a method of determining test alternating strength for unit test of robot software may further include a test case generation module, wherein the automated test system further includes a test case generation module. Generating a test case with a combination of the test factors.

In the embodiment of the present invention, generating the test case generates the test case using an orthogonal array of test factors according to the number of test alternating intensities.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, an optimal number of alternating intensities may be suggested by analyzing source code to arbitrarily determine the number of alternating intensities of the arguments of a function to be tested in the unit test of the robot software. This can significantly reduce the time and cost of testing by creating a minimum number of test cases to achieve maximum test effectiveness. In particular, by automating the creation of test cases, testing of robotic software can be made faster.

Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, the present invention is not limited or limited by the embodiments. Like reference numerals in the drawings denote like elements.

One embodiment of the present invention provides a test alternation strength determination method and an automated test system that can automatically generate an optimal test case when applying unit test of robot software.

1 is a view showing the internal configuration of an automated test system of robot software according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Referring to FIG. 1, an automated test system for robot software according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a user interface 101, a source recognition module 102, a factor pattern analysis module 103, and a test case generation module ( 104 and a test case store 105.

The user interface 101 serves as an interface with a user and receives source code of software from the user.

The source recognition module 102 performs a function of recognizing a test target function, that is, a test target function, from the source code input by the user through the user interface 101 according to the user's request.

The factor pattern analysis module 103 determines the number of test alternating strengths from the interrelationships between the test factors while analyzing how the factors of the test target function (hereinafter referred to as 'test factors') are used in the source code. do.

The test case generation module 104 performs a function of generating a test case with a combination of test factors according to the number of test alternating intensities determined by the factor pattern analysis module 103.

The test case store 105 is a means for storing test cases generated by the test case generation module 104. The test case storage 105 distinguishes and stores test cases based on a creation date and a name of a corresponding test target function.

The process of determining the number of test alternating intensities in the factor pattern analysis module 103 will be described in detail.

The factor pattern analysis module 103 analyzes a test factor in which an interaction occurs in the test object function. Interaction means that the result of the function is changed by the interaction between each test factor entering the test target function. In this case, different test target functions have different numbers of test factors, and in particular, the number of test factors in which interaction occurs. The largest value among the number of test factors in which this interaction occurs is called the alternating intensity. For example, if there are test factors A, B, C, D, and E in the test target function, A and B interact, and C, D, and E interact, the alternating intensity of the test target function is 3 do.

It is desirable to determine the number of test alternating strengths in order to increase the reliability of the test while satisfying the test coverage during the robot software white box unit test. An embodiment of the present invention may automatically determine the number of test alternating strengths by analyzing how the test factor of the test target function is used in the program source through the factor pattern analysis module 103. The factor pattern analysis module 103 analyzes the correlation between the test factors on the source, that is, the usage pattern of the test factors, and increases the number of test alternating intensities when a test factor having a specific correlation is found. At this end, the optimal number of test alternating strengths can be determined.

2 is a view for explaining the process of the test alternating strength determination method for unit testing of the robot software according to an embodiment of the present invention. Here, the test alternating strength determination method according to an embodiment of the present invention can be executed by the automated test system shown in FIG.

At the start of analysis of the source code, the flag value EndFlag indicating the end of the sentence contained in the source and the alternating intensity value N indicating the number of test alternating intensities are set to zero (S201) (S202). .

It reads one sentence from the source and determines whether the currently read sentence is the end sentence (S203) (S204). In this case, if the read sentence is the end sentence, the flag value is changed to 1 (S205). If the read sentence is not the end sentence, it is checked whether test factors of the test target function exist in the read sentence (S206).

If a test factor does not exist in the test target function, another sentence is read, and if the test factor exists, the correlation between the test factors is analyzed and the number of alternating strengths is increased according to the correlation between the test factors (S207) (S208). (S209).

Interrelationships between test factors may include concurrent, selective, dependent, and containment relationships. The parameters of the test target function include input and output arguments. The interrelationship between the test arguments may refer to the interrelationship of input factors that affect the output of the function.

The interrelationship between the test factors can be summarized as follows.

(1) Concurrency relationship: Concurrency refers to the case where arguments to input are used together in a sentence of the source code (where a sentence means a code that ends with;). If the same argument is used in a sentence, the relationship between the two arguments can affect the function output. The notation shall be '∧'.

(2) Optional use relationship: Optional use means that more than one input argument is used in one sentence of the source code. Since this does not affect each other, there is no need to test the combination of these factors. The notation shall be '∨'.

(3) Dependency: The dependency of test factors means that the output can be affected within the source code. In order to affect, it is used where related to the variable affecting the output. When arguments are used in consecutive statements in square brackets in the source, they are said to be dependent, and the notation is '←'.

(4) Inclusion Relationships: Inclusion relationships are those in which one test argument affects the use of another argument, where one argument is used and included in the statement of the argument used before the statement that follows. The notation shall be '⊃'.

One embodiment of the present invention can analyze the source code using the interrelationship between the four basic types of test factors. In addition, the correlation between test factors may have a form in which at least two of the above four basic correlations are combined.

Correlation type between test factors can be defined as shown in Table 1.

(In this case, the test factors are A, B, and C as an example.) number Form of interrelationship Explanation example Alternating strength  Number calculation One A∧B When arguments are used together in a sentence If (A = 0 && B = "dd") {
If (A = = B) {
If, for, while 1 increase 2 A∨B When A or B is used optionally If (A) {}
else (B) {} No increase 3 A ← B When B is used in consecutive sentences after using A
int a = A
int b = B
1 increase 4 A⊃B When B is used within a block statement after A If (A) {
int b = B;
} 1 increase 5 (A∧B) ∨C
Ie 1∧2 If (A && C) {}
else (B) {} 1 increase 6 (A∧B) ← C
That is 1∧3 A combination of A or B followed by C If (A = 0 && B = "dd") {
int c = C;
} 2 increase 7 (A∧B) ∨ (A⊃B)
That is 1∧4 3 increase 8 (A∨B) ∨ (A ← B)
That is, 2∧3 1 increase 9 (A∨B) ⊃C
That is, 2∧4 A combination of A or B followed by C 3 increase 10 (A ← B) ⊃C
That is, 3∧4 If (A) {
int c = C
int b = B
} 3 increase 11 return⊃A Trace the factors that affect the return Increase by the number of arguments 12 Arguments related to the output Arguments related to the output are not included in the test case combination. No increase 13 A∧B∧C
(When the number of factors that interact with it continues to increase) The types that affect the increase in the number of alternating intensities are 1, 3, and 4, which, when added, increases the number of alternating intensities. Increase by the number of factors added 14 overlap If the same argument is used in multiple places, only the largest value is calculated.

Here, numbers 1 to 4 mean concurrent use relations, selective use relations, dependency relations, and inclusion relations corresponding to basic formats, and numbers 5 to 10 refer to patterns representing the basic formats of numbers 1 to 4 in combination. In addition, the number 11 indicates a pattern in which the function directly affects the return of the function, and the number 12 indicates a pattern in which the argument receives a value rather than an input to the function. Finally, the number 13 means a pattern in which any one of the numbers 1 to 4 appears consecutively, in which case the number of combinations may be increased according to the number of additional factors.

In an embodiment of the present invention, when analyzing the test target function, the test factors first have four basic combinations, and then again, the basic combinations should be examined for another combination. The source can be analyzed in the manner described above and the number of test alternating intensities that can emerge can be very large. However, as shown in Table 1, when the number of combinations needs to be increased, it can be said that there are cases where the patterns of numbers 1, 3, and 4 are related, and the return value of the function is directly affected as shown in number 11.

In FIG. 2, after recognizing what the test factor is through the processes S203 to S209, when the alternating strength value N is 0 or 1, the alternating strength value N is initialized to 2 (S211). This is because the minimum number of alternating strengths must be two. Thereafter, the process (S203 ~ S209) is repeated to analyze the pattern of the test factor until the end sentence (EndFlag = 1) of the sentences contained in the source (S210).

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the number of test alternating strengths may be determined by the interrelationship between test factors included in the test target function, and a test case may be prepared by combining test factors according to the number of test alternating strengths. In one embodiment of the present invention, the test case may be written using a method such as 2-way or 3-way, such as an orthogonal array algorithm. The above algorithm is automated and the test case can be automatically obtained once the number of test alternating strengths is determined.

Table 2 illustrates the process of determining the number of alternating intensities as an example of a test function with four (a, b, c, d) arguments.

void test (int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
int x = 0, y = 0;
if (a> 0)
{
x = 2;
}
else
{
x = 5;
}

if (b> 0)
{
y = 1 + x;
}

if (c> 0)
{
if (d> 0)
{
output (x);
}
else
{
output (10);
}
}
else
{
output (1 / (y-6));
}
}
int mid (int x, int y, int z)
{
int mid
mid = z
if (y <z)
{
if (x <y) {
mid = y
}
else {
if (x <z)
{
mid = x
}
}
}
else
{
if (x> y)
{
mid = y
}
else
{
if (x> z)
{
mid = x
}
}
}
return (mid);
}

Applying the arguments a, b, c, d used in the test function in Table 2 to Table 1, we see that a, b of the arguments are not interrelated, and in the optional use relationship (number 2) for the arguments c, d Can be. However, the selective use relationship does not affect the number of alternating strengths, so the number of alternating strengths is determined to be the initial alternating strength value of 2. In this case, all the coverages may be satisfied even if the test case is generated and executed using only two combinations without considering all combinations of the four factors. In the test function of Table 2, the range of candidates for each argument ranges from -10 to 10. In this case, if a test case is created using the equal division method, five candidates of each factor are created. As can be seen in Table 3, if all the combinations are used, the number of test cases corresponding to 5 powers of 5 is made. However, according to an embodiment of the present invention, the test case is set with the number of test alternating strengths as 2. When created, only 32 test cases will be generated. The mid function, like the test function, also has a candidate for each argument from -10 to 10. Looking at the correlations between the factors of the factors x, y, and z, the number of alternating intensities increases by +2 when each factor is combined, resulting in a number of alternating intensities. As can be seen from Table 3, when all test cases are made, 125 test cases with a total of 3 are created. However, the 2-way method according to an embodiment of the present invention has 26 test cases. Coverage can be satisfied.

Traditional way Method of the invention Test case count Coverage Test case count Branch coverage mid 125 10/10 26 10/10 test 625 8/8 32 8/8

Therefore, one embodiment of the present invention can save the time and cost of the test by proceeding as many tests as necessary without testing the combination of all test factors when applying the unit test of the robot software. In addition, an embodiment of the present invention may implement an automated test system that automatically generates test cases through analyzing patterns of test factors, ie, correlations, on a source.

Embodiments of the present invention include computer readable media including program instructions for performing various computer implemented operations. The computer readable medium may include program instructions, data files, data structures, etc. alone or in combination. The media may be program instructions that are specially designed and constructed for the present invention or may be available to those skilled in the art of computer software. Examples of computer-readable recording media include magnetic media such as hard disks, floppy disks, and magnetic tape, optical media such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, and magnetic disks, such as floppy disks. Magneto-optical media, and hardware devices specifically configured to store and execute program instructions, such as ROM, RAM, flash memory, and the like. Examples of program instructions include not only machine code generated by a compiler, but also high-level language code that can be executed by a computer using an interpreter or the like.

As described above, the present invention has been described by specific embodiments such as specific components and the like. For those skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains, various modifications and variations are possible.

Therefore, the spirit of the present invention should not be limited to the described embodiments, and all of the equivalents or equivalents of the claims as well as the claims to be described later will belong to the scope of the present invention. .

1 is a view showing the internal configuration of an automated test system of robot software according to an embodiment of the present invention.

2 is a view for explaining the process of the test alternating strength determination method for unit testing of the robot software according to an embodiment of the present invention.

<Explanation of symbols for the main parts of the drawings>

102: source recognition module

103: factor pattern analysis module

104: test case generation module

Claims (14)

In an automated test system for generating test cases for unit testing of robot software, A source recognition module for recognizing a test target function from a source code input by a user; A factor pattern analysis module for determining a number of test alternating intensities from correlations between test factors of the test target function; And, A test case generation module generating a test case with a combination of the test factors according to the number of test alternating strengths Automation test system of the robot software comprising a. The method of claim 1, The correlation between the test factors, Concurrent usages where two or more different test arguments are used together in one statement, optional usage relationships optionally used in one statement of two or more different test arguments, or statements in which one or more different test arguments are used Robot software, including a dependency relationship in which one test factor is used in successive sentences and a containment relationship in which another test factor is used in a block statement after one test factor of two or more different test factors. Automated testing system. The method of claim 2, The correlation between the test factors, Further comprising a combination of at least two of the coexistence relationship, the selective use relationship, the dependency relationship, and the inclusion relationship. The method of claim 2, The correlation between the test factors, Further comprising a relationship directly affecting a return value of the function under test. The method of claim 1, The factor pattern analysis module, And if the test factors in correlation are found, increasing the number of test alternating intensities and determining the number of test alternating intensities at the end of the analysis of the test target function as the final number of test alternating intensities. The method of claim 1, The test case generation module, And generate the test case using an orthogonal array of test factors in accordance with the number of test alternating intensities. In the method of determining the test alternating strength of an automated test system consisting of a source recognition module and a factor pattern analysis module for unit testing of the robot software, Recognizing a test target function in a source code input by a user in the source recognizing module; And, Determining a number of test alternating strengths from correlations between test factors of the test target function in the factor pattern analysis module; Test alternating strength determination method for unit testing of the robot software comprising a. The method of claim 7, wherein Determining the number of test alternating strengths, Analyzing the correlation between the test factors in the test object function; Increasing the number of test alternating intensities if the test factors in correlation are found; Determining the number of test alternating intensities at the end of the analysis of the test target function as the number of final test alternating intensities Including a test alternation strength determination method for unit testing of the robot software. The method of claim 8, The correlation between the test factors, Concurrent usages where two or more different test arguments are used together in one statement, optional usage relationships optionally used in one statement of two or more different test arguments, or statements in which one or more different test arguments are used Robot software, including a dependency relationship in which one test factor is used in successive sentences and a containment relationship in which another test factor is used in a block statement after one test factor of two or more different test factors. How to determine test alternating strength for unit testing 10. The method of claim 9, The correlation between the test factors, And at least two of the simultaneous use relationship, the selective use relationship, the dependency relationship, and the inclusion relationship, further comprising a combined relationship. 10. The method of claim 9, The correlation between the test factors, The method of claim 1, further comprising a relationship directly affecting a return value of the test target function. The method of claim 7, wherein The automated test system further includes a test case generation module, Generating a test case with a combination of the test factors according to the determined number of test alternating strengths in the test case generation module; Test alternating strength determination method for unit testing of the robot software further comprising. The method of claim 12, Generating the test case, And generating the test case using an orthogonal array of test factors according to the number of test alternating intensities. A computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing the method of any one of claims 7 to 13.

Images