Fault Domain-Based Testing in Imperfect Situations: a Heuristic Approach and Case Studies
Loading...
Files
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Open Access Color
BRONZE
Green Open Access
Yes
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
Model-based testing (MBT) involves creating an abstraction, called a model, to represent the system and automatically deriving test cases from this model. MBT can be performed using various approaches that generally employ certain assumptions or requirements affecting the test performance in practice. Here, we consider the harmonized state identifiers (HSI) method, which is based on finite state machine (FSM) models and generates test sets that cover all faults in a given domain under certain conditions. We are interested in the application of the HSI method in practical scenarios where some conditions do not hold or are not straightforward to satisfy. Thus, we propose a heuristic extension to the HSI method, called heuristic HSI (HHSI), to consider imperfect situations as they often occur in practice. To analyze the characteristics of HHSI, we empirically compare it to random testing and coverage-based testing using non-trivial case studies. The experiments include model-based mutation analyses over several FSM models.
Description
Keywords
HSI method, Heuristic methods, Imperfect situation, Fault domains, Finite state machines, Software testing, Imperfect situation, HSI method, Heuristic methods, Fault domains, Finite state machines, Software testing
Fields of Science
0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, 02 engineering and technology
Citation
Belli, F., Beyazıt, M., Endo, A.T., Mathur, A., and Simao, A. (2015). Fault domain-based testing in imperfect situations: a heuristic approach and case studies. Software Quality Journal, 23(3), 423-452. doi:10.1007/s11219-014-9242-6
WoS Q
Scopus Q

OpenCitations Citation Count
9
Source
Volume
23
Issue
3
Start Page
423
End Page
452
PlumX Metrics
Citations
CrossRef : 3
Scopus : 10
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 19
SCOPUS™ Citations
10
checked on Apr 29, 2026
Web of Science™ Citations
9
checked on Apr 29, 2026
Page Views
979
checked on Apr 29, 2026
Downloads
493
checked on Apr 29, 2026
Google Scholar™



