skip to main content
research-article

Software testing with an operational profile: OP definition

Published:01 February 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article is devoted to the survey, analysis, and classification of operational profiles (OP) that characterize the type and frequency of software inputs and are used in software testing techniques. The survey follows a mixed method based on systematic maps and qualitative analysis. This article is articulated around a main dimension, that is, OP classes, which are a characterization of the OP model and the basis for generating test cases. The classes are organized as a taxonomy composed of common OP features (e.g., profiles, structure, and scenarios), software boundaries (which define the scope of the OP), OP dependencies (such as those of the code or in the field of interest), and OP development (which specifies when and how an OP is developed). To facilitate understanding of the relationships between OP classes and their elements, a meta-model was developed that can be used to support OP standardization. Many open research questions related to OP definition and development are identified based on the survey and classification.

References

  1. S. Arora, R. B. Misra, and V. M. Kumre. 2005. Software reliability improvement through operational profile driven testing. In Proc. of the 53rd Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 621--627.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. D. Bousquet, F. Ouabdesselam, and J.-L. Richier. 1998. Expressing and implementing operational profiles for reactive software validation. In Proc. of the 9th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’98). 222--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. A. Brooks and A. M. Memon. 2007. Automated GUI testing guided by usage profiles. In Proc. of the 22nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’07). 333--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Charmaz. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Corbin and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 3rd Ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Cramer. 1997. Basic Statistics for Social Research: Step-by-Step Calculations and Computer Techniques Using Minitab. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. C. Csallner and Y. Smaragdakis. 2004. JCrasher: An automatic robustness tester for Java. Software Practice and Experience 34, 11, 1025--1050. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. W. Dulz and F. Zhen. 2003. MaTeLo—Statistical usage testing by annotated sequence diagrams, Markov chains and TTCN-3. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Quality Software. 336--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Elbaum and S. Narla. 2001. A methodology for operational profile refinement. In Proc. of the 2001 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS’01). 142--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. D. F. Fabio, A. Carlomusto, A. Petrillo, and A. Ramondo. 2012. Human reliability analysis: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Research in Management and Technology, 2, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Gittens, H. Lutfiyya, and M. Bauer. 2004. An extended operational profile model. In Proc. of the 15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’04). 314--325. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss. 2009. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Gwet. 2002. Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters. Statistical Methods for Inter-rater Reliability Assessment 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. H. L. Guen and T. Thelin. 2003. Practical experiences with statistical usage testing. In Proc. of the 11th Annual Workshop on Software Test and Reliability Estimation Process at Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP’03). 87--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. H. L. Guen, R. Marie, and T. Thelin. 2004. Reliability estimation for statistical usage testing using Markov chains. In Proc. of the 15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’04). 54--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Hamlet, D. Mason, and D. Woit. 2001. Theory of software reliability based on components. In Proc. of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’01). 361--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. M. Hammersley and D. C. Handscomb. 1964. Monte Carlo Methods (Methuen's Monographs on Applied Probability and Statistics). Methuen, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. Harel. 1987. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, 231--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. B. Huang, M. Rodríguez, M. Li, J. Bernstein, and C. Smidts. 2011. Hardware error likelihood induced by the operation of software. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 60, 3, 622--639.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. B. Huang, M. Rodríguez, M. Li, and C. Smidts. 2007. On the development of fault injection profiles. In Proc. of the 53nd Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS’07). 226--231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. IEEE/ISO/IEC 24765. 2010. System and Software Engineering Vocabulary. Standards.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. M. Jørgensen and M. Shepperd. 2007. A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33, 33--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. D. Juhlin. 1992. Implementing operational profiles to measure system reliability. In Proc. of the 3rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’02). 286--295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. B. Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Technical Report. Keele University TR/SE-0401, NICTA Technical Report 0400011T.1, Keele University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. P. Koopman and J. Devale. 1999. Comparing the robustness of POSIX operating systems. In Proc. of the 29th IEEE International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. 30--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K. S. Kumar, R. B. Misra, and N. K. Goyal. 2008. Development of fuzzy software operational profile. International Journal of Reliability, Quality, and Safety Engineering 15, 581--597.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. T. Muhr and S. Friese. 2004. User's Manual for ATLAS. ti 6.0. ATLAS. ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berline.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. D. Musa. 1992. The operational profile in software reliability engineering: An overview. In Proc. of the 3rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’92). 140--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. J. D. Musa. 1993. Operational profiles in software-reliability engineering. IEEE Software 10, 2, 14--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. F. Ouabdesselam and I. Parissis. 1995. Constructing operational profiles for synchronous critical software. In Proc. of the 6th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’95). 286--293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. K. Petersen, R. Feldt, S. Mujtaba, and M. Mattsson. 2008. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. S. J. Prowell. 2003. JUMBL: A tool for model-based statistical testing. In Proc. of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. M. Popovic and J. Kovacevic. 2007. A statistical approach to model-based robustness testing. In Proc. of the 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS’07). 485--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. A. Rosenberg and E. Binkowski. 2004. Augmenting the kappa statistic to determine interannotator reliability for multiply labeled data points. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL 2004: Short Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, 77--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. P. Runeson and C. Wohlin. 1993. Statistical usage testing for software reliability certification and control. In Proc. of the 1st European International Conference on Software Testing, Analysis and Review (EuroSTAR’93). 309--323Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. J. Saldana. 2012. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (No. 14). Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. B. Shneideman and C. Plaisant. 2010. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human Interaction. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. R. Shukla, D. Carrington, and P. Strooper. 2004a. Systematic operational profile development for software components. In Proc. of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’04). 528--537. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. R. Y. Shukla, P. A. Strooper, and D. A. Carrington. 2004b. A framework for reliability assessment of software components. In Proc. of the 7th International Symposium on Component-based Software Engineering (CBSE7). 272--279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. J. Sim and C. C. Wright. 2005. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy 85, 3, 257--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. C. Taylor, T. C. Gibbs and A. Lewins. 2005. Quality of Qualitative Analysis. Retrieved from http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/qualitative_analysis.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. G. H. Walton, J. H. Poore, and C. J. Trammell. 1995. Statistical testing of software based on a usage model. Software—Practice and Experience 25, 1, 97--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Y. Wei, M. Rodríguez, and C. Smidts. 2010. PRA framework for software propagation analysis of failures. Journal of Risk and Reliability 224, 2, 113--135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. E. J. Weyuker. 1998. Testing component-based software: A cautionary tale. IEEE Software 15, 5, 54--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. J. A. Whittaker and J. Voas. 2000. Toward a more reliable theory of software reliability. IEEE Computer 33, 12, 36--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. J. A. Whittaker and J. H. Poore. 1993. Markov analysis of software specifications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. 2, 1, 93--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. J. A. Whittaker. and M. G. Thomason. 1994. A Markov chain model for statistical software testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 10, 812--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. D. M. Woit. 1993. Specifying Operational Profiles for Modules. In Proc. of the 1993 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA’93). 2--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. J. Yan, J. Wang, and H. W. Chen. 2004. Automatic generation of Markov chain usage models from real-time software UML Models. In Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC’04). 22--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. F. Zhen and C. Peng. 2004. A system test methodology based on the Markov chain usage model. In Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2004). 160--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Software testing with an operational profile: OP definition

                      Recommendations

                      Comments

                      Login options

                      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                      Sign in

                      Full Access

                      • Published in

                        cover image ACM Computing Surveys
                        ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 46, Issue 3
                        January 2014
                        507 pages
                        ISSN:0360-0300
                        EISSN:1557-7341
                        DOI:10.1145/2578702
                        Issue’s Table of Contents

                        Copyright © 2014 ACM

                        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                        Publisher

                        Association for Computing Machinery

                        New York, NY, United States

                        Publication History

                        • Published: 1 February 2014
                        • Accepted: 1 August 2013
                        • Revised: 1 July 2013
                        • Received: 1 January 2011
                        Published in csur Volume 46, Issue 3

                        Permissions

                        Request permissions about this article.

                        Request Permissions

                        Check for updates

                        Qualifiers

                        • research-article
                        • Research
                        • Refereed

                      PDF Format

                      View or Download as a PDF file.

                      PDF

                      eReader

                      View online with eReader.

                      eReader