1 / 44

Testing Effectiveness and Reliability Modeling for Diverse Software Systems

Testing Effectiveness and Reliability Modeling for Diverse Software Systems. CAI Xia Ph.D Term 4 April 28, 200 5. Outline . Introduction Background study Reliability modeling Testing effectiveness Future work Conclusion. Introduction. Software reliability engineering techniques

field
Download Presentation

Testing Effectiveness and Reliability Modeling for Diverse Software Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Testing Effectiveness and Reliability Modeling for Diverse Software Systems CAI Xia Ph.D Term 4 April 28, 2005

  2. Outline • Introduction • Background study • Reliability modeling • Testing effectiveness • Future work • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Software reliability engineering techniques • Fault avoidance • structure programming, software reuse, and formal methods • Fault removal • testing, verification, and validation • Fault tolerance • single-version technique • multi-version technique (design diversity) • Fault prediction • reliability modeling

  4. Software Fault Tolerance • Layers of Software fault tolerance

  5. SFT techniques • Single-version techniques • Checkpointing and recovery • Exception handling • Data diversity • Multi-version techniques (Design diversity) • Recovery block • N-version programming • N self-checking programming

  6. Design diversity • To deploy multiple-version programs to tolerate software faults during operation • Principle: redundancy • Applications • Airplane control systems, e.g., Boeing 777 & AIRBUS A320/A330/A340 • aerospace applications • nuclear reactors • telecommunications products

  7. Design diversity (cont’) • Controversial issues: • Failures of diverse versions may correlate with each other • Reliability modeling on the basis of failure data collected in testing • Testing is a critical issue to ensure the reliability • Testing completeness and effectiveness  Test case selection and evaluation  code coverage? • Real-world empirical data are needed to perform the above analysis

  8. Research questions • How to predict the reliability of design diversity on the basis of the failure data of each individual version? • How to evaluate the effectiveness of a test set? Is code coverage a good indicator?

  9. Experimental description • Motivated by the lack of empirical data, we conducted the Redundant Strapped-Down Inertial Measurement Unit (RSDIMU) project • It took more than 100 students 12 weeks to develop 34 program versions • 1200 test cases were executed on these program versions • 426 mutants were generated by injecting a single fault identified in the testing phase • A number of analyses and evaluations were conducted in our previous work

  10. Outline • Introduction • Background study • Reliability modeling • Testing effectiveness • Future work • Conclusion

  11. Reliability models for design diversity • Eckhardt and Lee (1985) • Variation of difficulty on demand space • Positive correlations between version failures • Littlewood and Miller (1989) • Forced design diversity • Possibility of negative correlations • Dugan and Lyu (1995) • Markov reward model • Tomek and Trivedi (1995) • Stochastic reward net • Popov, Strigini et al (2003) • Subdomains on demand space • Upper/lower bounds for failure probability Conceptual models Structural models In between

  12. PS Model • Alternative estimates for probability of failures on demand (pfd) of a 1-out-of-2 system

  13. PS Model (cont’) • Upper bound of system pfd • “Likely” lower bound of system pfd - under the assumption of conditional independence

  14. DL Model • Example: Reliability model of DRB

  15. DL Model (cont’) • Fault tree models for 2-, 3-, and 4-version systems

  16. Comparison of PS & DL Model

  17. Outline • Introduction • Background study • Reliability modeling • Testing effectiveness • Future work • Conclusion

  18. Testing effectiveness • The key issue in software testing is test case selection and evaluation • What is a good test case? • testing effectiveness and completeness • fault coverage • To allocate testing resources, how to predict the effectiveness of a given test case in advance?

  19. Testing effectiveness • Code coverage: an indicator of fault detection capability? • Positive evidence • high code coverage brings high software reliability and low fault rate • both code coverage and fault detected in programs grow over time, as testing progresses. • Negative evidence • Can this be attributed to causal dependency between code coverage and defect coverage?

  20. Testing effectiveness (cont’) • Is code coverage a good indicator for fault detection capability? ( That is, what is the effectiveness of code coverage in testing? ) • Does such effect vary under different testing profiles? • Do different code coverage metrics have various effects?

  21. Basic concepts: code coverage • Code coverage - measured as the fraction of program codes that are executed at least once during the test. • Block coverage - the portion of basic blocks executed. • Decision coverage - the portion of decisions executed • C-Use- computational uses of a variable. • P-Use - predicate uses of a variable

  22. Basic concepts: testing profiles • Functional testing – based on specified functional requirements • Random testing - the structure of input domain based on a predefined distribution function • Normal operational testing – based on normal operational system status • Exceptional testing - based on exceptional system status

  23. Experimental requirement • Complicated and real-world application • Large population of program versions • Controlled development process • Bug history recorded • Real faults studied • Our RSDIMU project satisfies above requirements

  24. Test cases description I II III IV V VI

  25. The correlation between code coverage and fault detection Is code coverage a good indicator of fault detection capability? • In different test case regions • Functional testing vs. random testing • Normal operational testing vs. exceptional testing • In different combinations of coverage metrics

  26. The correlation: various test regions • Test case coverage contribution on block coverage • Test case coverage contribution on mutant coverage

  27. The correlation: various test regions • Linear modeling fitness in test case regions • Linear regression relationship between block coverage and defect coverage in whole test set

  28. The correlation: various test regions • Linear regression relationship between block coverage and defect coverage in region IV • Linear regression relationship between block coverage and defect coverage in region VI

  29. The correlation: various test regions Observations: • Code coverage: a moderate indicator • Reasons behind the big variance between region IV and VI

  30. The correlation: functional testing vs. random testing • Code coverage: - a moderate indicator • Random testing – a necessary complement to functional testing • Similar code coverage • High fault detection capability

  31. The correlation: functional testing vs. random testing • Failure details of mutants failed at less than 20 test cases: detected by 169 functional test cases (800 in total) & 94 random test cases (400 in total)

  32. The correlation: functional testing vs. random testing • Failure number of mutants that detected only by functional testing or random testing

  33. The correlation: normal operational testing vs. exceptional testing • The definition of operational status and exceptional status • Defined by specification • application-dependent • For RSDIMU application • Operational status: at most two sensors failed as the input and at most one more sensor failed during the test • Exceptional status: all other situations • The 1200 test cases are classified to operational and exceptional test cases according to their inputs and outputs

  34. The correlation: normal operational testing vs. exceptional testing • Normal operational testing • very weak correlation • Exceptional testing • strong correlation

  35. The correlation: normal operational testing vs. exceptional testing • Normal testing: small coverage range (48%-52%) • Exceptional testing: two main clusters

  36. The correlation: normal operational testing vs. exceptional testing • Failure number of mutants that detected only by normal operational testing or exceptional testing

  37. The difference between two pairs of testing profiles • The whole testing demand space can be classified into seven subsets according to system status Si,j : • S0,0 S0,1 S1,0 S1,1 S2,0 S2,1 Sothers • i: number of sensors failed in the input • j: number of sensors failed during the test • Functional testing vs. random testing • big overlap on seven system status • Normal testing vs. exceptional testing • no overlap on seven system status • This may explain the different performance of code coverage on testing effectiveness under two pairs of testing profiles

  38. The correlation: under different combinations • Combinations of testing profiles • Observations: • Combinations containing exceptional testing indicate strong correlations • Combinations containing normal testing inherit weak correlations

  39. The correlation: under different coverage metrics • Similar patterns as block coverage • Insignificant difference under normal testing • Decision/P-use: control flow change related • Larger variation in code coverage brings more faults detected

  40. Discussions • Does the effect of code coverage on fault detection vary under different testing profiles? • A significant correlation exists in exceptional test cases, while no correlation in normal operational test cases. • Higher correlation is revealed in functional testing than in random testing, but the difference is insignificant. • Do different coverage metrics have various effects on such relationship? • Not obvious with our experimental data

  41. Discussions (cont’) • This is the first time that the effect of code coverage on fault detection are examined under different testing profiles • Overall, code coverage is a moderate indicator for testing effectiveness • The correlation in small code coverage range is insignificant • Our findings of the positive correlation can give guidelines for the selection and evaluation of exceptional test cases

  42. Future work • Generate 1 million test cases and exercise them on current 34 versions to collect statistical failure data • Conduct cross-comparison with previous project to investigate the “variant” and “invariant” features in design diversity • Quantify the relationship between code coverage and testing effectiveness

  43. Conclusion • Survey on software fault tolerance evolution, techniques, applications and modeling • Evaluate the performance of current reliability models on design diversity • Investigate the effect of code coverage under different testing profiles and find it is a clear indicator for fault detection capability, especially for exceptional test cases

  44. Q & A Thank you!

More Related