Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 15

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2018F313

Citation: Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 15, pages 863–866 (2018)

Full text

Abstract. Behavior of UML state machines can be a source of interpretation problems in model to code transformation. Different solutions to the semantic variants could be defined as a special kind of mutations, similarly as in the mutation testing. State machines together with class models can be a source of an Model-Driven Software Development process aimed at building an executable application. We have compared several approaches to creating applications based on models in which semantic mutation operators of state machine behavior are used. The most promising approach has been utilized to extend the Framework for eXecutable UML (FXU) with semantic mutation facilities. The framework supports code generation from UML classes and their state machines as well as developing C# applications according to selected mutations of state machine behavior. The tool has been used in evaluation of a case study.

References

1. E. Dominguez, B. Perez, A.L. Rubio, and M.A. Zapata, “A systematic review of code generation proposals from state machine specifications,” Information & Software Technology, 54, no. 10, 2012, pp. 1045-1066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.04.008
2. M. Harman and Y. Jia, “An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing,” IEEE Transactions Software Engineering, vol. 37, no. 5, 2011, pp. 649-678, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2010.62
3. A. Derezińska, “Object-oriented mutation to assess the quality of tests,” in Proc. of the 29th Euromicro Conf., IEEE Comp. Society, Los Alamitos, California, 2003, pp. 417-420. htpp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EURMIC.2003.1231626
4. M. Trakhtenbrot, “New mutation for evaluation of specification and implementation levels of adequacy in testing of statecharts models,” in Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Mutation Analysis (MUTATION'07), Windsor, 2007, pp. 151-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAIC.PART.2007.23.
5. M. Trakhtenbrot, "Implementation-oriented mutation testing of statechart models", Proc. 3rd Int'l. Conf. on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops, Paris, 6-9 April 2010, pp.120-125. http://dx.doi.org 10.1109/ICSTW.2010.55
6. J.A. Clark, H. Dan, and R.M. Hierons, “Semantic mutation testing,” in Science of Computer Programming, no. 78 pp. 345-363, 2013. http://dx.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2011.03.011
7. M. Trakhtenbrot, “Mutation patterns for temporal requirements of reactive systems,” in Proc. of 10th IEEE Intern. Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops, 2017, pp. 116-121. http://dx.doi.org 10.1109/ICSTW.2017.27
8. A. Derezińska and R. Pilitowski, “Realization of UML class and state machine models in the C# Code Generation and Execution Framework,” Informatica vol. 33, no 4, pp. 431-440, Nov. 2009.
9. A. Derezińska and A. Szustek, "Object-Oriented Testing Capabilities and Performance Evaluation of the C# Mutation System," in Proc. 4th IFIP TC2 Central and Eastern European Conference on Software Engineering Techniques CEE-SET 2009, LNCS, vol. 7054, pp. 229-242, Springer, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/:10.1007/978-3-642-28038-2_18
10. A. Derezińska, “Mutating state machine behavior”, unpublished.
11. A. Derezińska, M. Szczykulski, "Towards C# application development using UML state machines – a case study," in Emerging Trends in Computing, Informatics, System Sciences, and Engineering, T. Sobh, K. Elleithy, Eds. LNEE vol. 151, Springer, 2013, pp. 793-803, htpp://dx.doi.org /10.1007/978-1-4614-3558-7_68