Structural coverage metrics have traditionally categorized code as either covered or uncovered. Recent work presents a stronger notion of coverage, checked coverage, which counts only statements whose execution contributes to an outcome checked by an oracle. While this notion of coverage addresses the adequacy of the oracle, for Model-Based Development of safety critical systems, it is still not enough; we are also interested in how much of the oracle is covered, and whether the values of program variables are masked when the oracle is evaluated. Such information can help system engineers identify missing requirements as well as missing test cases. In this work, we combine results from checked coverage with results from requirements coverage to help provide insight to engineers as to whether the requirements or the test suite need to be improved. We implement a dynamic backward slicing technique and evaluate it on several systems developed in Simulink. The results of our preliminary study show that even for systems with comprehensive test suites and good sets of requirements, our approach can identify cases where more tests or more requirements are needed to improve coverage numbers.
7th NASA Formal Methods Symposium, Pasadena, California, April 2015.
Associated research group: Critical Systems Research Group
Murugesan, Anitha; Whalen, Michael; Rungta, Neha; Tkachuk, Oksana; Person, Suzette; Heimdahl, Mats; You, Dongjiang.
Are We There Yet? Determining the Adequacy of Formalized Requirements and Test Suites.
Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
Content distributed via the University of Minnesota's Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor.