Skip to main content
Log in

Representation and automatic generation of state-transition mapping tree

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among software testing techniques for the detection of software defects, state-transition-based testing which utilizes state diagrams is pretty well known and is being used widely. Such software testing techniques that are based on specifications of a software and perform various tests by utilizing a number of state diagrams are quite well known. According to different testing environment including individuals, applied methods, and the size of a perceived system, the resulting diagrams might highly show the discrepancy regarding some perspectives such as correctness, the quality of representation, and so on. This significantly affects the understanding of a system such that the system under consideration might be interpreted in different ways. The highly complex state diagrams can have a negative effect on the productive and positive utilization of state diagrams in the software system development including the analysis or the state-transition-based test process. Many state diagram-based process conventional approaches for automatic software analysis do not take the complexity problem into deep consideration so much. Moreover, the state diagrams generated by the methods that place a strong emphasis on complexity can generate inappropriate test cases according to the possible misled guidelines or the incorrect objectives. In this paper, we propose methods for resolution of the complexity problem in a state diagram without modification of the states or the transition relationships. In our proposed methods, we provide a representation model in which a software system can be interpreted in the context of a state diagram and an automatic generation method for the proposed representation. We also illustrate a case study for justification of plausibility of the proposed methods.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NIPA (2012) Software engineering. Whitebook, Korea

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beizer B (1984) Software system testing and quality assurance. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. IPL Information Processing Ltd. (2011) Testing state machine with ada TEST and CANTATA, IPL paper

  4. Harel D (1987) Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Program 8(3):231–274

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Larman C (2004) Applying UML and patterns: an introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and iterative development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ambler SW (2005) The elements of UML 2.0 style. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Derr KW (1995) Applying OMT: a practical step-by-step guide to using the object modeling technique. SIGS Publications

  8. Cruz-Lemus JA, Maes A, Genero M, Poelsand G, Piattini M (2010) The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. Inf Sci: Int J 180(11):2209–2220

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Genero M, Mirandaand D, Piattini M (2003) Defining metrics for UML statechart diagrams in a methodological way. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2814:118–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cruz-Lemus JA, Genero M, Ovlivas JA, Romero FP, Piattini M (2004) Predicting UML statechart diagrams understandability using fuzzy logic-based techniques. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’2004), 238–245

  11. Miranda D, Genero M, Piattini M (2005) Empirical validation of metrics for UML statechart diagrams. In: Enterprise information systems, 101–108

  12. Choi SK, Park YB (2013) Derivation of state transition diagram from class using tree structure. KTSDE 2(1):19–26

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young B. Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, JH., Park, Y.B. & Choi, SK. Representation and automatic generation of state-transition mapping tree. J Supercomput 74, 3855–3874 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2393-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2393-7

Keywords

Navigation