[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/2934466.2946046acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Search-based test case selection of cyber-physical system product lines for simulation-based validation

Published: 16 September 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) are often tested at different test levels following "X-in-the-Loop" configurations: Model-, Software- and Hardware-in-the-loop (MiL, SiL and HiL). While MiL and SiL test levels aim at testing functional requirements at the system level, the HiL test level tests functional as well as non-functional requirements by performing a real-time simulation. As testing CPS product line configurations is costly due to the fact that there are many variants to test, test cases are long, the physical layer has to be simulated and co-simulation is often necessary. It is therefore extremely important to select the appropriate test cases that cover the objectives of each level in an allowable amount of time. We propose an efficient test case selection approach adapted to the "X-in-the-Loop" test levels. Search algorithms are employed to reduce the amount of time required to test configurations of CPS product lines while achieving the test objectives of each level. We empirically evaluate three commonly-used search algorithms, i.e., Genetic Algorithm (GA), Alternating Variable Method (AVM) and Greedy (Random Search (RS) is used as a baseline) by employing two case studies with the aim of integrating the best algorithm into our approach. Results suggest that as compared with RS, our approach can reduce the costs of testing CPS product line configurations by approximately 80% while improving the overall test quality.

References

[1]
A. Arcuri and L. Briand. A practical guide for using statistical tests to assess randomized algorithms in software engineering. In Software Engineering (ICSE), 2011 33rd International Conference on, pages 1--10. IEEE, 2011.
[2]
A. Arcuri, M. Z. Iqbal, and L. Briand. Black-box system testing of real-time embedded systems using random and search-based testing. In Proceedings of the 22Nd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Testing Software and Systems, ICTSS'10, pages 95--110, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. Springer-Verlag.
[3]
A. Arrieta, G. Sagardui, and L. Etxeberria. A configurable test architecture for the automatic validation of variability-intensive cyber-physical systems. In VALID 2014: The Sixth International Conference on Advances in System Testing and Validation Lifecycle, pages 79--83, 2014.
[4]
A. Arrieta, G. Sagardui, and L. Etxeberria. Cyber-physical systems product lines: Variability analysis and challenges. In Jornadas de Computación Empotrada, 2015.
[5]
A. Arrieta, G. Sagardui, and L. Etxeberria. Test control algorithms for the validation of cyber-physical systems product lines. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line, SPLC '15, pages 273--282, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.
[6]
T. Berger, R. Rublack, D. Nair, J. M. Atlee, M. Becker, K. Czarnecki, and A. Wasowski. A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS), pages 7:1--7:8, 2013.
[7]
P. Derler, E. A. Lee, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Modeling cyber-physical systems. Proceedings of the IEEE (special issue on CPS), 100(1):13 -- 28, January 2011.
[8]
J. C. Eidson, E. A. Lee, and S. Matic. Distributed real-time software for cyber-physical systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100:45--59, 2011.
[9]
D. Greer and G. Ruhe. Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. Information and Software Technology, 46(4):243 -- 253, 2004.
[10]
Y. Jia and M. Harman. An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 37(5):649--678, 2011.
[11]
A. Kane, T. E. Fuhrman, and P. Koopman. Monitor based oracles for cyber-physical system testing: Practical experience report. In 44th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 2014, Atlanta, GA, USA, June 23-26, 2014, pages 148--155, 2014.
[12]
R. Kuhn, R. Kacker, Y. Lei, and J. Hunter. Combinatorial software testing. Computer, 42:94--96, 2009.
[13]
J. Lee, S. Kang, and D. Lee. A survey on software product line testing. In Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference-Volume 1, pages 31--40. ACM, 2012.
[14]
R. E. Lopez-Herrejon, L. Linsbauer, and A. Egyed. A systematic mapping study of search-based software engineering for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 61:33 -- 51, 2015.
[15]
H. Lu, T. Yue, S. Ali, and L. Zhang. Model-based incremental conformance checking to enable interactive product configuration. Information and Software Technology, 72:68--89, 04/2016 2016.
[16]
Z. Lu, M. M. Bezemer, and J. F. Broenink. Model-driven design of simulation support for the terra robot software tool suite. In Communicating Process Architectures 2015, pages 143 -- 158, 2015.
[17]
R. Matinnejad. Simulink fault patterns. Technical report, 2015.
[18]
P. J. Mosterman, D. E. Sanabria, E. Bilgin, K. Zhang, and J. Zander. Automating humanitarian missions with a heterogeneous fleet of vehicles. Annual Reviews in Control, 38(2):259--270, 2014.
[19]
A. B. Sánchez, S. Segura, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. A comparison of test case prioritization criteria for software product lines. In IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation, pages 41--50, 2014.
[20]
H. Shokry and M. Hinchey. Model-based verification of embedded software. Computer, 42(4):53 -- 59, 2009.
[21]
V. Stricker, A. Metzger, and K. Pohl. Avoiding redundant testing in application engineering. In Software Product Lines: Going Beyond, pages 226--240. Springer, 2010.
[22]
T. Thuem, C. Kastner, F. Benduhn, J. Meinicke, G. Saake, and T. Leich. Featureide: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development. Science of Computer Programming, 79:70 -- 85, 2014.
[23]
S. Wang, S. Ali, and A. Gotlieb. Minimizing test suites in software product lines using weight-based genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2013 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pages 1493 -- 1500, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2013.
[24]
S. Wang, S. Ali, and A. Gotlieb. Cost-effective test suite minimization in product lines using search techniques. Journal of Systems and Software, 103(0):370 -- 391, 2015.
[25]
S. Wang, S. Ali, A. Gotlieb, and M. Liaaen. A systematic test case selection methodology for product lines: results and insights from an industrial case study. Empirical Software Engineering, pages 1--37, 2014.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Software product line testing: a systematic literature reviewEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10516-x29:6Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
  • (2023)Single and Multi-objective Test Cases Prioritization for Self-driving Cars in Virtual EnvironmentsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/353381832:2(1-30)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Some Seeds Are Strong: Seeding Strategies for Search-based Test Case SelectionACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/353218232:1(1-47)Online publication date: 13-Feb-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SPLC '16: Proceedings of the 20th International Systems and Software Product Line Conference
September 2016
367 pages
ISBN:9781450340502
DOI:10.1145/2934466
  • General Chair:
  • Hong Mei
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]

Sponsors

  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
  • Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies: Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of Education
  • DC Holdings: Digital China Holdings Limited

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 September 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. cyber-physical system product lines
  2. search-based software engineering
  3. test case selection

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SPLC '16
Sponsor:
  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
  • Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies
  • DC Holdings

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 167 of 463 submissions, 36%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Software product line testing: a systematic literature reviewEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10516-x29:6Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
  • (2023)Single and Multi-objective Test Cases Prioritization for Self-driving Cars in Virtual EnvironmentsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/353381832:2(1-30)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Some Seeds Are Strong: Seeding Strategies for Search-based Test Case SelectionACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/353218232:1(1-47)Online publication date: 13-Feb-2023
  • (2023)What Not to Test (For Cyber-Physical Systems)IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2023.327230949:7(3811-3826)Online publication date: Jul-2023
  • (2023)Machine learning-based test selection for simulation-based testing of self-driving cars softwareEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10286-y28:3Online publication date: 26-Apr-2023
  • (2022)Fault Handling in Industry 4.0: Definition, Process and ApplicationsSensors10.3390/s2206220522:6(2205)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Multi-Objective Metamorphic Test Case Selection: an Industrial Case Study (Practical Experience Report)2022 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)10.1109/ISSRE55969.2022.00058(541-552)Online publication date: Oct-2022
  • (2022)Bioinspired Algorithms in Software Testing: A Systematic Literature Review2022 International Conference on Mechatronics, Electronics and Automotive Engineering (ICMEAE)10.1109/ICMEAE58636.2022.00033(151-157)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2022
  • (2022)Optimizing Product-Line Architectures with MOA4PLAUML-Based Software Product Line Engineering with SMarty10.1007/978-3-031-18556-4_11(241-263)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2022
  • (2021)Review of Design Elements within Power Infrastructure Cyber–Physical Test Beds as Threat Analysis EnvironmentsEnergies10.3390/en1405140914:5(1409)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media