20041221 gui testing survey


Published on

"Hierarchical GUI Test Case Generation Using Automated Planning"

"Plan Generation for GUI Testing"

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 要由 a 得到 b 的 goal ,有數種法子: 1. 由 Document.doc 轉成 new.doc ,只要刪掉一些字。 2. 由 doc2.doc 轉成 new.doc ,要增加一些字 3. 或是開一空白文件檔輸入文字。
  • 20041221 gui testing survey

    1. 1. GUI TestingApproaches Will Shen 2004/12/21
    2. 2. References Hierarchical GUI Test Case Generation Using Automated Planning  Atif M. Memon, Student Member, IEEE, Martha E. Pollack, and Mary Lou Soffa, Member, IEEE Plan Generation for GUI Testing  Atif M. Memon and Martha E. Pollack and Mary Lou Soffa Dept. of Computer Science University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA fatif, pollack, soffag@cs.pitt.edu
    3. 3.  Coverage Criteria for GUI Testing  Atif M. Memon Dept. of Computer Science University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 atif@cs.pitt.edu  Mary Lou Soffa Dept. of Computer Science University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 soffa@cs.pitt.edu  Martha E. Pollack Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109pollackm@eecs.umich.edu
    4. 4. Outline1. Introduction2. Overview of PATHS3. Coverage Criteria for GUI Testing4. Conclusions
    5. 5. 1. Introduction Testing GUI is difficult:  The space of possible interactions with a GUI is enormous.  In that each sequence of GUI commands can result in a different state  A GUI command may need to be evaluatedion all of these states.  Determining the coverage of a set of test cases.  No only how much the code is tested, but in how many different possible states of the software each piece of code is tested.
    6. 6.  An important aspect of GUI testing is verification of its state at each step of test case execution.  The execution of the test case must be terminated as soon as an error is detected. Regression testing presents special challenges for GUIs.  The input-output mapping does not remain constant across successive versions of the software.
    7. 7. 2. Overview of PATHS Planning Assited Tester for grapHical user interface Systems. A new approach to automatic testing of GUIs that builds on AI planning techniques. Given a specification of initial and goal states for a GUI, a planner is used to generate sequences of GUI actions that lead from the initial state to the goal state.
    8. 8. 2.1 The Example GUI Microsoft WordPad
    9. 9. (a) the Initial States(b) The Goal State
    10. 10. 2.2 Test case generation process Two phases  Setup phase 1. PATHS creates a hierarchical model of the GUI and returns a list of operators from the model to the test designer 2. By using knowledge of the GUI, the test designer then defines the preconditions and effects of the operators in a simple language provided by the planning system.
    11. 11.  Plan-generation 1. The test designer describes scenarios (tasks) by defining a set of initial and goal states for test case generation. 2. PATHS generates a test suite for the scenarios.
    12. 12. 2.3 Deriving GUI operators 2.3.1 Events 2.3.2 Operators 2.3.3 Operator-Event mapping 2.3.4 The Step1 of example GUI 2.3.5 The Step2 of EDIT_CUT 2.3.6 The Step3 initial state and goal state 2.3.7 The Step4 generate test case
    13. 13. 2.3.1 Events Three classes of GUI event  Unrestricted-focus events open GUI windows that do not restrict the user’s focus  Restricted-focus events open GUI windows that have the special property that once invoked, they monopolize the GUI interaction.  System-interaction events interact with the underlying software to perform some action.
    14. 14. 2.3.2 Operators The setup phase starts creating a list of a operators to be used during planning. Exploiting the GUI structure to derive hierarchical operators that are decomposed during planning.  System-Interaction Operators  Abstract Operators
    15. 15. System-Interaction Operators To represent sequences of GUI actions that a user might perform to eventually interact with the underlying software. A sequence of zero or more unrestricted-focus events, followed by a system-interaction event. Example:  Edit_Cut = <Edit, Cut>  Edit_Paste = <Edit, Paste>
    16. 16. Abstract Operators Created from the restricted-focus events, which contain two parts:  The prefix of an abstract operator is the sequence of unrestricted-focus events that lead to restricted- focus event.  The suffix of an abstract operator represents the restricted-focus user interaction.
    17. 17. 2.3.3 Operator-Event mapping In order to keep a correspondence between the original GUI events and these high-level operators.
    18. 18. 2.3.4 The Step1 of example GUI (a) Original GUI Events (b) Planning operators derived by PATHS
    19. 19. 2.3.5 The Step2 of EDIT_CUT
    20. 20. 2.3.6 The Step3 initial state and goal state
    21. 21. 2.3.7 The Step4 generate test case High level plan that must be decomposition decomposition decomposition
    22. 22. An alternative decomposition
    23. 23. A new test case
    24. 24. 3. Coverage Criteria for GUI Testing 3.1 What is Coverage Criteria 3.2 Event-flow Graphs 3.3 Integration Tree 3.4 Intra-component Coverage Criteria 3.5 Inter-component Coverage Criteria
    25. 25. 3.1 What is Coverage Criteria Coverage criteria are sets of rules to help determine whether a test suite has adequately tested a program and to guide the testing process. Important rules that provide an objective measure of test quality.
    26. 26.  This paper define a new class of coverage criteria called event-based coverage criteria to determine the adequacy of tested event sequences, focus on GUIs. The key idea is to define the coverage of a test suite in terms of GUI events and their interactions.
    27. 27.  A GUI component is represented by a new structure called an event-flow graph that identifier events within a component. The interactions among GUI components are captured by a representation called the integration tree.
    28. 28.  Intra-component coverage criteria for events within a component  event, event-interaction and length-n event-sequence coverage. Inter-component coverage criteria for events among components.  invocation, invocation-termination and length-n event-sequence coverage
    29. 29. 3.2 Event-flow Graphs
    30. 30. A part of the Main* component of MSB WordPadI I I* We assume that all GUIs have a Main component, that is presented to the user when the GUI is first invoked.
    31. 31. 3.3 Integration Tree
    32. 32. An integration tree for a part of MS WordPad
    33. 33. 3.4 Intra-component Coverage Criteria 3.4.1 Event Coverage 3.4.2 Event-interaction Coverage 3.4.3 Length-n Event-sequence Coverage
    34. 34. 3.4.1 Event CoverageEvent-sequence:
    35. 35. 3.4.2 Event-interaction Coverage
    36. 36. 3.4.3 Length-n Event-sequence Coverage
    37. 37. 3.5 Inter-component Coverage Criteria 3.5.1 Invocation Coverage 3.5.2 Invocation-termination Coverage 3.5.3 Inter-component Length-n Event- sequence Coverage
    38. 38. 3.5.1 Invocation Coverage
    39. 39. 3.5.2 Invocation-termination Coverage
    40. 40. 3.5.3 Inter-component Length-n Event-sequence Coverage
    41. 41. 4. Conclusion Automatic testing of GUIs that builds on AI planning technique Coverage criteria for GUI testing We also plan to explore the possibility of using the event-based coverage criteria for software other than GUIs.  Object-oriented software  Networking software  The broader class of reactive software Any questions?