Skip to main content
Log in

Test case verification by model checking

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Verification of a test case for testing the conformance of protocol implementations against the formal description of the protocol involves verifying three aspects of the test case: expected input/output test behavior, test verdicts, and the test purpose. We model the safety and liveness properties of a test case using branching time temporal logic. There are four types of safety properties: transmission safety, reception safety, synchronization safety, and verdict safety. We model a test purpose as a liveness property and give a set of notations to formally specify a test purpose. All these properties expressed as temporal formulas are verified using model checking on an extended state machine graph representing the composed behavior of a test case and protocol specification. This methodology is shown to be effective in finding errors in manually developed conformance test suites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. Naik and B. Sarikaya Testing communication protocols.IEEE Software, 27–37, 1992

  2. ISO/IEC 9646: Information Technology-Open Systems Interconnection-Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework, 1991.

  3. ISO/IEC IS8807: LOTOS, a formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observable behavior, ISO/TC97/SC21/WG1-FDT/SC-C, June 1988.

  4. T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma. Introduction to ISO specification language LOTOS.Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25–59 1987.

  5. ISO/IEC IS9074: Estelle — A formal description technique based on an extended state transition model, ISO/TC97/SC21/WG1, 1987.

  6. S. Budkowski and P. Dembinski. An introduction to Estelle: A specification language for distributed systems.Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14: 3–23, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CCITT, Specification and Description Language SDL, Recommendation Z.100, 1992.

  8. ISO/IEC 8824: Profile of abstract syntax notation one, IS8824, 1987.

  9. D.P. Sidhu and T.K. Leung. Formal methods for protocol testing: A detailed study.IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 15 (4): 413–426, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A.T. Dahbura, T.K. Sabnani, and M.U. Uyar. Formal methods for generating protocol conformance test sequencesProceedings of the IEEE, 78 (8): 1317–1326, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. Sarikaya, G.v. Bochmann, E. Cerny. A test design methodology for protocol testing.IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., 13(5): 518–526, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Tripathy and B. Sarikaya. Test case generation from LOTOS specification.IEEE Trans. on Computers, 40: 543–552, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Abstract test suite for transport protocol class 2. The National Computing Centre Limited, Manchester, UK, 1988.

  14. J.B. Goodenough and S.L. Gerhart. Toward a theory of test data selection.IEEE Trans. on Sofware Eng., SE-1 (2): 20–37, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  15. B. Sarikaya. Conformance testing: Architectures and test sequences.Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 17: 111–126, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On communicating finite-state machines.JACM 30, (2): 323–342, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Naik and B. Sarikaya. An extended finite state machine model for TTCN. Proc. of the 15th. Biennial Symposium on Communications, Kingston, Ontario, 1990, pp. 296–299.

  18. Information Processing Systems-Open System Interconnection-Basic Reference Model, ISO 7498, 1984.

  19. M. Jackson.System development. Prentice Hall, 1983.

  20. K. Naik.Verification of test cases for protocol conformance testing. Ph.D. theseis, Concordia University, Montreal, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. v. Bochmann. Hardware specification with temporal logic: An example.IEEE Trans. on Computers, C-31: 223–231, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules.ACM TOPLAS, 5, (2): 190–222, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  23. E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, and A.P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications.ACM TOPLAS, 8 (2), 224–263, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  24. K. Sabnani, An algorithm technique for protocol verification.IEEE Transaction on Comm, COM-36 (8): 924–931, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. Ben-Ari. A. Pnueli, and Z. Manna. The temporal logic of branching time.Acta Informatica, 20: 207–225, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J.C. Fernandez, J.L. Richier, and J. Voiron. Verification of protocol specifications using the CESAR system. IFIP PSTV V, 1985.

  27. P. Tripathy.A Unified Model for test generation for communication protocols. Ph.D. thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  28. C.H. West. General techniques for communication protocol validation.IBM Journal of Res. and Development, 22 (4): 393–404, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Rubin and C.H. West. An improved protocol validation technique.Computer Networks, 6: 65–73, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. Zafiropulo, C.H. West, H. Rudin, D.D. Cowan, and D. Brand. Towards analyzing and synthesizing protocols.IEEE Trans. on Comm., COM-28 (4): 651–661, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  31. B. Sarikaya and G. v. Bochmann. Synchronization and specification issues in protocol testing.IEEE Trans. on Comm. COM-32 (4): 389–395, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  32. G. v. Bochmann. Specification of a simplified transport protocol using different formal description techniques.Computer and Networks and ISDN Systems, 18: 335–377, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Dubuc and G. v. Bochmann. Translation from TTCN to LOTOS and verification of Test Cases.FORTE'90, Madrid, 1990.

  34. K. Naik and B. Sarikaya. Verification of protocol conformance test cases using reachability analysis.The Journal of Systems Sofware, 19: 41–57, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  35. U. Bar and J.M. Schneider. Automated validation of TTCN test suites. IFIP PSTV XII, Orlando, FL, pp. 279–295, 1992.

  36. L. Logrippo, et al. An interpreter for LOTOS, A specification language for distributed systems.Software Practice and Experience, 18: 365–385, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  37. F.J. Lin, P.M. Chu, and M.T. Liu. Protocol verification using reachability analysis: The state space explosion problem and relief strategies. SIGCOMM'87, Stowe, Vermont, 126–135, 1987.

  38. J.S. Ostroff. Deciding properties of timed transition models.IEEE Trans. on Parallel and Distributed Systems 1 (2): 170–183, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naik, K., Sarikaya, B. Test case verification by model checking. Form Method Syst Des 2, 277–321 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384135

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384135

Keywords

Navigation