skip to main content
10.1145/2425415.2425422acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodelsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Automatic selection of test execution plans from a video conferencing system product line

Published:30 September 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Cisco Video Conferencing Systems (VCS) Product Line is composed of many distinct products that can be configured in many different ways. The validation of this product line is currently performed manually during test plan design and test executions' scheduling. For example, the testing of a specific VCS product leads to the manual selection of a set of test cases to be executed and scheduled, depending on the functionalities that are available on the product. In this paper, we develop an alternative approach where the variability of the VCS Product Line is captured by a feature model, while the variability within the set of test cases is captured by a component family model. Using the well-known pure::variants tool approach that establishes links between those two models through restrictions, we can obtain relevant test cases automatically for the testing of a new VCS product. The novelty in this paper lies in the design of a large component family model that organizes a complex test cases structure. We envision a large gain in terms of man-power when a new product is issued and needs to be tested before being marketed.

References

  1. Cisco Systems. Cisco telepresence codec c90. data sheet. available from http://www.cisco.com. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. David Benavides Cuevas. On the Automated Analysis of Software Product Lines Using Feature Models. PhD thesis, Universidad de Sevilla, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Oster; F. Markert; P. Ritter. Automated incremental pairwise testing of software product lines. In Software Product Line Conference(SPLC'10), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. R. Kuhn; D. R. Wallace; A. M. Gallo. Software fault interactions and implications for software testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 30(6):418--421, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Tevanlinna; J. Taina; R. Kauppinen. Product family testing: a survey. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 29(2):12, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. M. Cohen; S. R. Dalal; M. L. Fredman; G. C. Patton. The aetg system: an approach to testing based on combinatorial design. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 23:437--444, July 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Uzuncaova; D. Garcia; S. Khurshid; D.batory. Testing software product lines using incremental test generations. ISSRE. IEEE Computer Society, pages 249--258, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Benavides; S. Segura; A. R. Cortés. Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Information Systems, (35):615--636, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Metzger; K. Pohl; P. Heymans; P. Y. Schobbens; G. Saval. Disambiguating the documentation of variability in software product lines: A separation of concerns, formalization and automated analysis. In Requirements Engineering Conference, pages 243--253, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Pure systems GmbH. Variant management with pure::variants. technical white paper. available from http://web.pure-systems.com. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. K. Czarnecki; M. Antkiewicz. Mapping features to models: A template approach based on superimposed variants. Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE), 3676:422--437, September 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Rabiser; P. Grunbacher; D. Dhungana. Supporting product derivation by adapting and augmenting variability models. In Software Product Line Conference, (141--150), September 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. White; B. Doughtery; D. Schmidt; D. Benavides. Automated reasoning for multi-step software product-line configuration problems. In Software Product Line Conference, pages 11--20, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. Czarnecki; S. Helsen; U. W. Eisenecker. Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 10(2):143--169, June 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. D. Benavides; A. Ruiz-Cortés; P. Trinidad; S. Segura. A survey on the automated analyses of feature models. In Jornadas de Ingenieréa del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD), pages 367--376, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. White; D. Benavides; D. C. Schmidt; P. Trinidad; B. Dougherty; A. Ruiz-Cortés. Automated diagnosis of feature model configurations. Joural of Systems and Software, 83(7):1094--1107, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. Czarnecki; C. Kim; K. Kalleberg. Feature models are views on ontologies. In proceedings of the 10th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), pages 41--51, August 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. Beuche; H. Papajewski; W. Schröder-Preikschat. Variability management with feature models. Science of Computer Programming, 53(3):333--352, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. B. Cohen; M. B. Dwyer; J. Shi. Constructing interaction test suites for highly-configurable systems in the presence of constraints: A greedy approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(5):633--650, July 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Perrouin; S. Sen; J. Klein; B. Baudry; Y. le Traon. Automated and scalable t-wise test case generation strategies for software product lines. Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pages 459--468, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Pure systems GmbH. pure::variant user's guide. available from http://web.pure-systems.com. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Automatic selection of test execution plans from a video conferencing system product line

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        VARY '12: Proceedings of the VARiability for You Workshop: Variability Modeling Made Useful for Everyone
        September 2012
        39 pages
        ISBN:9781450318099
        DOI:10.1145/2425415

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 September 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader