This document discusses automated requirements-based testing for ISO 26262. It describes the software verification phases in ISO 26262 and the methods for deriving test cases from requirements. Requirements-based testing involves generating tests from requirements to ensure requirements coverage and traceability. The document outlines a process for automated test generation, execution and traceability to provide evidence of testing according to ISO 26262 standards.

1. 0Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Automated
Requirements-Based Testing
for ISO 26262

2. 1Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
ISO 26262 SW Verification Phases
SW Architectural
Design
SW Unit
Design
Code
Implementation
SW Safety
Requirements
SW Unit
Verification
SW Integration
& Verification
Testing of the
Embedded SW
Safety measures properly implemented
Complies with unit design & fulfils ASIL SW requirements
No undesired functionality or functional safety properties
Safety measures properly implemented
Fulfils architectural design
No undesired functionality or functional safety properties
Fulfils safety-related requirements in target environment
No undesired functionality or functional safety properties
Part 6:
Product Development at the
software level
 Phases 9 – 11
 Tables 7 – 15
7
6
8 9
8
11
10
Configuration
& Calibration
Data

3. 2Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Requirements Verification Method
ISO 26262 Table 7 – Methods for software unit verification
ISO 26262 Table 10 – Methods for verification of software integration
ISO 26262 Table 14 – Methods for tests of the embedded software

4. 3Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Deriving Test Cases from Requirements
ISO 26262 Tables 8 – Methods for deriving test cases for software unit / integration testing
ISO 26262 Table 15 – Methods for deriving test cases for the test of the embedded software
ISO 26262 Table 11 – Methods for deriving test cases for software integration testing

5. 4Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Requirements Based Testing (RBT)
Requirements
• Decomposed
• Correct
• Complete
• Unambiguous
• Logically consistent
Tests
• Pre-conditions
• Inputs
• Expected behaviours
• Expected outputs
• Post-conditions
Unit
Design
Code
Unit
Test
Integration
Test
Architectural
Design
Requirements Coverage
% Requirements verified by tests
<-> Traceability to tests
Code Coverage
% code executed by tests
<->Traceability to requirements
<->Traceability to tests
Test Coverage
% tests executed & passing
<-> Traceability to requirements
Safety
Requirements
Embedded
Test
Configuration &
Calibration Data

6. 5Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Manual Test Generation
Test Cases crafted Manually from Requirements
Can be hard work! – Even with powerful test tools
Insufficiently validated requirements
 Decomposed, Correct, Complete, Unambiguous, Logically consistent
 High-reliance on structural code coverage & reverse engineering
Complexity of test vectors
 Pre-conditions, Inputs, Expected behaviours & outputs, post-conditions
Boundary of Low Level Requirements ≠ usable test case vectors
 Test Framework: Drivers, Dependencies & Datasets
Gaps & Overlaps
 Defensive programming, private/protected code etc
 Equivalence classes

7. 6Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Requirements Tests
Code
So…How to Automate?
Configuration &
Calibration Data

8. 7Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Tests
Generation from Requirements
Test Case Generation
Test Cases Generated from Requirements
Very limited capability from:
NL, SNL, PDL,
Use Case Scenarios
Mathematical specs
More capability from
Models (e.g. MBT with UML)
Requirements

9. 8Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Generation from Code
Test Cases Generated from Code
Test Vectors from path solving
 Intelligent optimisation
Full test framework
 Pre-conditions, Inputs,
Expected behaviours,
Expected outputs & post-conditions
Tests generated for
maintainability & traceability Code
Tests
AutoTest
Requirements

10. 9Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Why use Coverage & Traceability?
Standard Compliance – the 100% Picture
Bi-directional requirements traceability
All executable code is justified tested
Evidence of success is: passing tests + traceability
Helps Ensure Completeness
Changed requirements capture & validation
Just enough code changes
Test case design updates
RBT processes can be most effective when iterative
Code
TestReq


11. 10Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
AutoTest + Trace for ISO 26262
AutoTest

12. 11Copyright 2017 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
AutoTest Generation
Flexible application
 GUI or CLI invocation
 Complete suite of passing unit tests
 Additional test cases to fill gaps
 Black-box cluster integration test through public functions
 White-box unit isolation test of static functions
 Uses Cantata workspace preferences
Test cases exercise all paths through the code
 Entry-Point
 Statement
 Decision
 MC/DC (unique cause)
Test Cases are complete & maintainable for full control
 All required inputs: parameters + accessible data
 All expected outputs: parameters + accessed data + call-order
 Each test case path solving purpose explained

13. 12Copyright 2017 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Build RunTest
Exe
Instruments
AutoTest
Makefiles
Tests
Code
AutoTest Process
Code Copy
Generation
Report
Test Results
Automatic Test Generation
Automatic Test Execution

14. 13Copyright 2017 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Example AutoTest Exercise
• 541 Source Files
• 807 C Functions
• 55,151 Executable LoC
• 4,901 McCabe total complexity
Source
Files
• 93% Fully executed
• 95% Fully executed
• 95%+ Fully executed
• 5,035 Total test cases
• 336,355 Total checks
Tested
Source
Files
Execution
36 minutes
Generation
2.03 hours

15. 14Copyright 2017 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Traced requirements, test
status and code coverage
Test Information
.csv ReqIF Excel
Requirements
Requirements
Management Tool
Full bi-directional
requirements traceability
evidence
Requirements Trace Closes Loop
Generate tests
link to requirements
Test Tool

16. 15Copyright 2017 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Easy Linking in Cantata Trace
Bi-directional drag and drop interface, immediately creates links on a server
Whole Test Scripts linked to Requirements
Individual Test Cases linked to Requirements

17. 16Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
3 Part Automation
1 Automatic Test Vector Generation
Test case vectors from code exercising all paths (up to MC/DC coverage)
Sets input parameters & data throughout test execution
Checks expected vs actual data, input & output parameters and call order
3 Automated Traceability & Coverage Data Production
Complete Requirements imported/exported for testing
AutoTest cases generated with traceable descriptions
Test status, Requirements traceability & Structural coverage evidence
2 Automated Test Execution
Continuous integration build, run and reporting

18. 17Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Complete 3 Way Analysis
Requirements
Code
Tests
Requirements Coverage
See requirements
coverage in your
requirements
management & test tools
Use the same tool for all
trace data
Test Coverage
Run tests when not executed
(continuous integration and
testing helps a lot)
Fix tests when they fail
Code Coverage
When you have gaps, identify if the code is:
dead / redundant, unreachable, deactivated (not used in this context)
If not, then add a test and that needs to be traced to [new] requirements
Configuration &
Calibration Data

19. 18Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Learn More

20. 19Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Further Enhancements?
ISO 26262 Table 7 – Methods for software unit verification
ISO 26262 Table 10 – Methods for verification of software integration
ISO 26262 Table 14 – Methods for tests of the embedded software
In Development

21. 20Copyright 2019 – QA Systems GmbH www.qa-systems.com
Thank you
Vielen Dank