Model Based Testing for Workflow Enabled Applications
Pruebas basadas en modelos para aplicaciones basadas en workflows
Mario E. Sánchez1, Camilo H. Jiménez2 and Jorge A. Villalobos3
1 Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Computación, Universidad de los Andes Bogotá, Colombia Software Languages Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Bruselas, Bélgica mar–san1@uniandes.edu.co.
2 Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Computación, Universidad de los Andes Bogotá, Colombia camil–ji@uniandes.edu.co.
]]> 3 Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Computación, Universidad de los Andes Bogotá, Colombia jvillalo@uniandes.edu.co
Article received on October 22, 2009
Accepted on May 18, 2010
Abstract
In recent years, workflow enabled applications have been used in an increasing number of contexts. This has required the swift development of new workflow languages and of their corresponding engines. However, the tools available to support the development of these engines are insufficient. In particular, the tools to test the implementation of engines have serious limitations, and are not well suited to test workflows. To address this problem we have developed ATF, a framework to build test environments and test suites for workflow engines. ATF is complemented by TDR, a roadmap that specifies the steps to adapt ATF to specific workflow languages and engines; TDR also specifies the steps to develop a complete test suite. This paper presents both the ATF and the TDR, and illustrates their usage in the context of a workflow engine built using the Cumbia platform.
Keywords: Model–based Testing, Workflow Testing, Test Scenarios, Trace–based Execution Analysis, Model Driven Engineering, Cumbia.
Resumen
]]> La aplicación de la tecnología de los workflows a un gran número de contextos ha traído consigo la necesidad de desarrollar rápidamente nuevos lenguajes de workflow con sus correspondientes motores. Sin embargo, las herramientas para apoyar este desarrollo son insuficientes y en particular lo son las que servirían para probar que los motores implementen correctamente la semántica de los lenguajes. Para enfrentar esta limitación, hemos desarrollado ATF, un framework abstracto para el desarrollo de entornos de prueba y escenarios de prueba para nuevos motores y nuevos lenguajes de workflow. ATF es complementado por TDR, una hoja de ruta que especifica los pasos para construir un nuevo ambiente de pruebas basada en ATF. Este artículo presenta tanto ATF como TDR e ilustra la forma en la que se utilizaron para probar un motor de workflow construido sobre la plataforma Cumbia.Palabras clave: Pruebas basadas en modelos, pruebas de workflows, escenarios de prueba, análisis de ejecución basado en trazas, ingeniería basada en modelos, Cumbia.
DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF
References
1. Apfelbaum, L. & Doyle, J. (1997). Model–Based Testing. Software Quality Week Conference, San Francisco, USA. [ Links ]
2. Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C. & Spoletini, P. (2007). A model checking approach to verify BPEL4WS workflows. IEEE International Conference on Service–Oriented Computing and Applications, Newport Beach, California, USA, 13–20. [ Links ]
]]>3. Cartwright, C. & Ricken M. (s.f.). Concutest–junit. Retrieved from http://www.cs.rice.edu/~mgricken/research/concutest/concjunit/. [ Links ]
4. Dai, G., Bai, X. & Zhao, C. (2007). A framework for model checking web service compositions based on BPEL4WS. IEEE International Conference on e–Business Engineering, Hong Kong, China, 165–172. [ Links ]
5. Dikmans, L. (s.f.). Testing BPEL in the Real World –Oracle BPEL Test Framework. Retrieved from http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue–archive/2007/07–nov/o67bpel–100400.html. [ Links ]
6. Drusinsky, D. (2000). The Temporal Rover and the ATG Rover. SPIN Model Checking and Software Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1885, 323–330. [ Links ]
7. Edelstein, O., Farchi, E., Nir, Y., Ratsaby, G. & Ur, S. (2002). Multithreaded Java program test generation. IBM Systems Journal, 41(1), 111 –125. [ Links ]
]]>8. Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W. M. P., Jansen–Vullers, M. H. & Verbeek, H. M. W. (2007). Protos2cpn: using colored Petri Nets for configuring and testing business processes. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 10(1), 95–110. [ Links ]
9. Kim, M., Viswanathan, M., Kannan, S., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O. (2004). Java–mac: A run–time assurance approach for Java programs. Formal Methods in System Design, 24(2), 129–155. [ Links ]
10. Konuru, R., Srinivasan, H., & Choi, J.–D. (2000). Deterministic replay of distributed Java applications. 14th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS'00), Cancún, México, 219–227. [ Links ]
11. Kortenkamp, D., Milam, T., Simmons, R. & Lopez, J. (2001). Collecting and analyzing data from distributed control programs. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 55(2), 236–254. [ Links ]
12. Li, Z., Sun, W., Jiang, Z. B. & Zhang, X. (2005). BPEL4WS unit testing: framework and implementation. IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'05), Orlando, Florida, USA, 103–110. [ Links ]
]]>13. Long, B., Hoffman, D. & Stropper P. (2003). Tool support for testing concurrent Java components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6), 555–566. [ Links ]
14. Lübke, D. (2007). Unit Testing BPEL Compositions. In Baresi, L. & Di Nitto, E. (Eds.), Test and Analysis of Web Services (149–171). Berlin; New York: Springer [ Links ]
15. Lucchi R. & Mazzara M. (2007). A pi–calculus based semantics for WS–BPEL. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 70(1), 96–118. [ Links ]
16. Mayer, P., & Lübke, D. (2006). Towards a BPEL unit testing framework. 2006 workshop on Testing, analysis, and verification of web services and applications, Portland, Maine, USA, 33–42. [ Links ]
17. OASIS Technical Committee (2005). Web Services Business Process Execution Language, Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://docs.oasis–open.org/wsbpel/2.0/wsbpel–v2.0.pdf. [ Links ]
18. Sánchez, M., Villalobos, J. & Romero, D. (2009). Un mecanismo de coordinación basado en máquinas de estado, empleado en las aplicaciones que usan workflows. Avances en Sistemas e Informática, 6(1), 3544. [ Links ]
19. Sánchez, M., Jiménez, C., Villalobos, J. & Deridder D. (2009). Building a multimodeling framework using executable models. 47th International Conference on Objects, Models, Components, Patterns (TOOLS EUROPE 2009), Zurich, Switzerland, 33, 157–174. [ Links ]
20. Utting, M., Pretschner, A. & Legeard B. (2006). A Taxonomy of model–based testing (Working Paper: 04/2006). Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato. [ Links ]
]]>