DOCSLIB.ORG

Integration and Component-Based Software Testing Learning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integration and Component-Based Software Testing Learning Learning objectives •! Understand the purpose of integration testing –! Distinguish typical integration faults from faults that Integration and Component-based should be eliminated in unit testing –! Understand the nature of integration faults and how Software Testing to prevent as well as detect them •! Understand strategies for ordering construction and testing –! Approaches to incremental assembly and testing to reduce effort and control risk •! Understand special challenges and approaches for testing component-based systems (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 1 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 2 What is integration testing? Integration versus Unit Testing Module test Integration test System test •! Unit (module) testing is a necessary foundation Specification: Module Interface specs, module Requirements –! Unit level has maximum controllability and visibility interface breakdown specification –! Integration testing can never compensate for Visible structure: Coding details Modular structure — none — inadequate unit testing (software architecture) •! Integration testing may serve as a process check –! If module faults are revealed in integration testing, Scaffolding Some Often extensive Some they signal inadequate unit testing required: –! If integration faults occur in interfaces between Looking for faults Modules Interactions, System correctly implemented modules, the errors can be in: compatibility functionality traced to module breakdown and interface specifications (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 3 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 4 Integration Faults Example: A Memory Leak •! Inconsistent interpretation of parameters or values –! Example: Mixed units (meters/yards) in Martian Lander Apache web server, version 2.0.48 •! Violations of value domains, capacity, or size limits Response to normal page request on secure (https) port –! Example: Buffer overflow •! Side effects on parameters or resources static void ssl io filter disable(ap filter t *f) –! Example: Conflict on (unspecified) temporary file •! Omitted or misunderstood functionality { bio filter in ctx t *inctx = f->ctx; –! Example: Inconsistent interpretation of web hits No obvious error, but •! Nonfunctional properties inctx->ssl = NULL; Apache leaked memory –! Example: Unanticipated performance issues inctx->filter ctx->pssl =slowly NULL; (in normal use) or •! Dynamic mismatches } quickly (if exploited for a –! Example: Incompatible polymorphic method calls DOS attack) (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 5 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 6 Example: A Memory Leak Example: A Memory Leak Apache web server, version 2.0.48 Apache web server, version 2.0.48 Response to normal page request on secure (https) port Response to normal page request on secure (https) port static void ssl io filter disable(ap filter t *f) static void ssl io filter disable(ap filter t *f) { bio filter in ctx t *inctx = f->ctx; { bio filter in ctx t *inctx = f->ctx; SSL_free(inctx -> ssl); SSL_free(inctx -> ssl); The missing code is for a Almost impossible to find inctx->ssl = NULL; structure defined and inctx->ssl = NULL; with unit testing. inctx->filter ctx->pssl =created NULL; elsewhere, inctx->filter ctx->pssl =(Inspection NULL; and some } accessed through an } dynamic techniques could opaque pointer. have found it.) (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 7 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 8 Maybe you’ve heard ... Translation... •! Yes, I implemented •! Yes, I implemented •! I didn’t think at all !module A", but I !module A", but I about the strategy didn’t test it didn’t test it for testing. I didn’t thoroughly yet. It thoroughly yet. It design !module A" for will be tested along will be tested along testability and I with !module A" when with !module A" when didn’t think about that’s ready. that’s ready. the best order to build and test modules !A" and !B". (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 10 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 11 Integration Plan + Test Plan Big Bang Integration Test An extreme and desperate approach: •! Integration test Test only after integrating all modules ... plan drives and is driven by the ... +!Does not require scaffolding project “build •!The only excuse, and a bad one Build Plan Test Plan plan” -! Minimum observability, diagnosability, efficacy, –! A key feature of the ... system architecture feedback System Architecture and project plan -! High cost of repair •! Recall: Cost of repairing a fault rises as a function of time between error and repair (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 12 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 13 Structural and Functional Strategies Top down . •! Structural orientation: Top Modules constructed, integrated and tested based on a hierarchical project structure –! Top-down, Bottom-up, Sandwich, Backbone •! Functional orientation: stub A stub B stub C Modules integrated according to application characteristics or features Working from the top level (in terms of “use” –! Threads, Critical module or “include” relation) toward the bottom. No drivers required if program tested from top-level interface (e.g. GUI, CLI, web app, etc.) (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 14 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 15 Top down .. Top down ... Top Top A stub B stub C A B C Write stubs of called or As modules replace used modules at each stubs, more stub X stub Y step in construction stub X stub Y functionality is testable (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 16 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 17 Top down ... complete Bottom Up . Top Starting at the leaves of the A Driver B C “uses” hierarchy, we never need stubs ... until the program is complete, and all X Y functionality can be X tested (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 18 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 19 Bottom Up .. Bottom Up ... Driver Driver A Driver ... but we must ... an intermediate construct drivers for module replaces a each module (as in driver, and needs its unit testing) ... own driver ... X Y X Y (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 20 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 21 Bottom Up .... Bottom Up ..... Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver A B A B C ... so we may have several working X Y X Y subsystems ... (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 22 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 23 Bottom Up (complete) Sandwich . Top Top (parts) A B C Stub C ... that are eventually Working from the extremes (top and X Y integrated into a Y single system. bottom) toward center, we may use fewer drivers and stubs (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 24 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 25 Sandwich .. Thread ... Top (more) Top A C A C A “thread” is a portion of several Sandwich integration modules that together provide a is flexible and user-visible program feature. X Y adaptable, but X complex to plan (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 26 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 27 Thread ... Thread ... Top Top A B C A B C Integrating one As in sandwich thread, then another, integration testing, we X Y etc., we maximize X Y can minimize stubs visibility for the user and drivers, but the integration plan may be complex (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 28 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 29 Critical Modules Choosing a Strategy •! Strategy: Start with riskiest modules •! Functional strategies require more planning –! Risk assessment is necessary first step –! Structural strategies (bottom up, top down, –! May include technical risks (is X feasible?), process sandwich) are simpler risks (is schedule for X realistic?), other risks –! But thread and critical modules testing provide better process visibility, especially in complex •! May resemble thread or sandwich process in systems tactics for flexible build order •! Possible to combine –! E.g., constructing parts of one module to test –! Top-down, bottom-up, or sandwich are reasonable functionality in another for relatively small components and subsystems •! Key point is risk-oriented process –! Combinations of thread and critical modules –! Integration testing as a risk-reduction activity, integration testing are often preferred for larger subsystems designed to deliver any bad news as early as possible (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 30 (c) 2007 Mauro Pezzè & Michal Young Ch 21, slide 31 Working Definition of Component Components — Related Concepts •! Reusable unit of deployment and composition •! Framework –! Deployed and integrated multiple times •!Skeleton or micro-architecture of an application –! Integrated by different teams (usually) •!May be packaged and reused as a component, with “hooks” or “slots” in the interface contract •!Component producer is distinct from component user •! Design patterns •! Characterized by an interface or contract •!Logical design fragments •!Describes access points, parameters, and all functional and •!Frameworks often implement patterns, but patterns are not non-functional behavior and conditions for using the frameworks. Frameworks are concrete, patterns are component abstract •!No other access (e.g., source code) is usually available •! Component-based system •! Often larger grain than objects or packages •!A system composed primarily by assembling components, –! Example: A complete database system may be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Core Elements of Continuous Testing
    WHITE PAPER CORE ELEMENTS OF CONTINUOUS TESTING Today’s modern development disciplines -- whether Agile, Continuous Integration (CI) or Continuous Delivery (CD) -- have completely transformed how teams develop and deliver applications. Companies that need to compete in today’s fast-paced digital economy must also transform how they test. Successful teams know the secret sauce to delivering high quality digital experiences fast is continuous testing. This paper will define continuous testing, explain what it is, why it’s important, and the core elements and tactical changes development and QA teams need to make in order to succeed at this emerging practice. TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 What is Continuous Testing? 6 Tactical Engineering Considerations 3 Why Continuous Testing? 7 Benefits of Continuous Testing 4 Core Elements of Continuous Testing WHAT IS CONTINUOUS TESTING? Continuous testing is the practice of executing automated tests throughout the software development cycle. It’s more than just automated testing; it’s applying the right level of automation at each stage in the development process. Unlike legacy testing methods that occur at the end of the development cycle, continuous testing occurs at multiple stages, including development, integration, pre-release, and in production. Continuous testing ensures that bugs are caught and fixed far earlier in the development process, improving overall quality while saving significant time and money. WHY CONTINUOUS TESTING? Continuous testing is a critical requirement for organizations that are shifting left towards CI or CD, both modern development practices that ensure faster time to market. When automated testing is coupled with a CI server, tests can instantly be kicked off with every build, and alerts with passing or failing test results can be delivered directly to the development team in real time.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading Practice: Test Strategy and Approach in Agile Projects
    CA SERVICES | LEADING PRACTICE Leading Practice: Test Strategy and Approach in Agile Projects Abstract This document provides best practices on how to strategize testing CA Project and Portfolio Management (CA PPM) in an agile project. The document does not include specific test cases; the list of test cases and steps for each test case are provided in a separate document. This document should be used by the agile project team that is planning the testing activities, and by end users who perform user acceptance testing (UAT). Concepts Concept Description Test Approach Defines testing strategy, roles and responsibilities of various team members, and test types. Testing Environments Outlines which testing is carried out in which environment. Testing Automation and Tools Addresses test management and automation tools required for test execution. Risk Analysis Defines the approach for risk identification and plans to mitigate risks as well as a contingency plan. Test Planning and Execution Defines the approach to plan the test cases, test scripts, and execution. Review and Approval Lists individuals who should review, approve and sign off on test results. Test Approach The test approach defines testing strategy, roles and responsibilities of various team members, and the test types. The first step is to define the testing strategy. It should describe how and when the testing will be conducted, who will do the testing, the type of testing being conducted, features being tested, environment(s) where the testing takes place, what testing tools are used, and how are defects tracked and managed. The testing strategy should be prepared by the agile core team.
    [Show full text]
  • Chap 3. Test Models and Strategies 3.5 Test Integration and Automation 1
    Chap 3. Test Models and Strategies 3.5 Test Integration and Automation 1. Introduction 2. Integration Testing 3. System Testing 4. Test Automation Appendix: JUnit Overview 1 1. Introduction -A system is composed of components. System of software components can be defined at any physical scope. Component System Typical intercomponent interfaces (locus of (Focus of Integration) (Scope of integration faults) Integration) Method Class Instance variables Intraclass messages Class Cluster Intraclass messages Cluster Subsystem Interclass messages Interpackage messages Subsystem System Inteprocess communication Remote procedure call ORB services, OS services -Integration test design is concerned with several primary questions: 1. Which components and interfaces should be exercised? 2. In what sequence will component interfaces be exercised? 2 3. Which test design technique should be used to exercise each interface? -Integration testing is a search for component faults that cause intercomponent failures. -System scope testing is a search for faults that lead to a failure to meet a system scope responsibility. ÷System scope testing cannot be done unless components interoperate sufficiently well to exercise system scope responsibilities. -Effective testing at system scope requires a concrete and testable system-level specification. ÷System test cases must be derived from some kind of functional specification. Traditionally, user documentation, product literature, line-item narrative requirements, and system scope models have been used. 3 2. Integration Testing -Unit testing focuses on individual components. Once faults in each component have been removed and the test cases do not reveal any new fault, components are ready to be integrated into larger subsystems. -Integration testing detects faults that have not been detected during unit testing, by focusing on small groups of components.
    [Show full text]
  • Integration Testing of Object-Oriented Software
    POLITECNICO DI MILANO DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN INGEGNERIA INFORMATICA E AUTOMATICA Integration Testing of Object-Oriented Software Ph.D. Thesis of: Alessandro Orso Advisor: Prof. Mauro Pezze` Tutor: Prof. Carlo Ghezzi Supervisor of the Ph.D. Program: Prof. Carlo Ghezzi XI ciclo To my family Acknowledgments Finding the right words and the right way for expressing acknowledgments is a diffi- cult task. I hope the following will not sound as a set of ritual formulas, since I mean every single word. First of all I wish to thank professor Mauro Pezze` , for his guidance, his support, and his patience during my work. I know that “taking care” of me has been a hard work, but he only has himself to blame for my starting a Ph.D. program. A very special thank to Professor Carlo Ghezzi for his teachings, for his willingness to help me, and for allowing me to restlessly “steal” books and journals from his office. Now, I can bring them back (at least the one I remember...) Then, I wish to thank my family. I owe them a lot (and even if I don't show this very often; I know this very well). All my love goes to them. Special thanks are due to all my long time and not-so-long time friends. They are (stricty in alphabetical order): Alessandro “Pari” Parimbelli, Ambrogio “Bobo” Usuelli, Andrea “Maken” Machini, Antonio “the Awesome” Carzaniga, Dario “Pitone” Galbiati, Federico “Fede” Clonfero, Flavio “Spadone” Spada, Gianpaolo “the Red One” Cugola, Giovanni “Negroni” Denaro, Giovanni “Muscle Man” Vigna, Lorenzo “the Diver” Riva, Matteo “Prada” Pradella, Mattia “il Monga” Monga, Niels “l’e´ semper chi” Kierkegaard, Pierluigi “San Peter” Sanpietro, Sergio “Que viva Mex- ico” Silva.
    [Show full text]
  • A Confused Tester in Agile World … Qa a Liability Or an Asset
    A CONFUSED TESTER IN AGILE WORLD … QA A LIABILITY OR AN ASSET THIS IS A WORK OF FACTS & FINDINGS BASED ON TRUE STORIES OF ONE & MANY TESTERS !! J Presented By Ashish Kumar, WHAT’S AHEAD • A STORY OF TESTING. • FROM THE MIND OF A CONFUSED TESTER. • FEW CASE STUDIES. • CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED. • SURVEY STUDIES. • GLOBAL RESPONSES. • SOLUTION APPROACH. • PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES. • CONCLUSION & RECAP. • Q & A. A STORY OF TESTING IN AGILE… HAVE YOU HEARD ANY OF THESE ?? • YOU DON’T NEED A DEDICATED SOFTWARE TESTING TEAM ON YOUR AGILE TEAMS • IF WE HAVE BDD,ATDD,TDD,UI AUTOMATION , UNIT TEST >> WHAT IS THE NEED OF MANUAL TESTING ?? • WE WANT 100% AUTOMATION IN THIS PROJECT • TESTING IS BECOMING BOTTLENECK AND REASON OF SPRINT FAILURE • REPEATING REGRESSION IS A BIG TASK AND AN OVERHEAD • MICROSOFT HAS NO TESTERS NOT EVEN GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND CISCO • 15K+ DEVELOPERS /4K+ PROJECTS UNDER ACTIVE • IN A “MOBILE-FIRST AND CLOUD-FIRST WORLD.” DEVELOPMENT/50% CODE CHANGES PER MONTH. • THE EFFORT, KNOWN AS AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, • 5500+ SUBMISSION PER DAY ON AVERAGE IS DESIGNED TO LOWER COSTS AND HONE OPERATIONS AS THE COMPANY FOCUSES ON BUILDING CLOUD AND • 20+ SUSTAINED CODE CHANGES/MIN WITH 60+PEAKS MOBILE SOFTWARE, SAY ANALYSTS • 75+ MILLION TEST CASES RUN PER DAY. • MR. NADELLA TOLD BLOOMBERG THAT IT MAKES MORE • DEVELOPERS OWN TESTING AND DEVELOPERS OWN SENSE TO HAVE DEVELOPERS TEST & FIX BUGS INSTEAD OF QUALITY. SEPARATE TEAM OF TESTERS TO BUILD CLOUD SOFTWARE. • GOOGLE HAVE PEOPLE WHO COULD CODE AND WANTED • SUCH AN APPROACH, A DEPARTURE FROM THE TO APPLY THAT SKILL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOOLS, COMPANY’S TRADITIONAL PRACTICE OF DIVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TEST AUTOMATION.
    [Show full text]
  • ISO 26262 Software Compliance with Parasoft C++Test
    ISO 26262 Software Compliance with Parasoft: Achieving Functional Safety in the Automotive Industry Some modern automobiles have more lines of code than a jet fighter. Even moderately sophisticated cars ship with larger and more complex codebases than the same line from just a few years ago. The inclusion of multi-featured infotainment systems, driver-assist technologies, and electronically controlled safety features as standard components—even in economy models—have fueled the growth of software in the automotive industry. Additionally, the emergence of driverless technology and “connected” cars that function as IoT systems on wheels will mean even larger and more complex codebases. All of the innovation taking place in the automotive industry, though, raises concerns over the safety, security, and reliability of automotive electronic systems. The concerns are appropriate given that the automotive software supply chain is a long convoluted system of third-party providers spanning several tiers. Consider, for example, that software developed for a specific microcontroller unit (MCU) may be integrated by a third-tier provider into a component they’re shipping to a second-tier provider and so on—until a composite component is delivered for final integration by the automaker. While not all automotive software is critical to the safe operation of the vehicle, code that carries out functional safety operations must be safe, secure, and reliable. Organizations must implement strong software quality process controls around the development of safety-critical software in accordance with ISO 26262, which is a functional safety standard for automotive software. ISO 26262 provides guidance on processes associated with software development for electrical and/or electronic (E/E) systems in automobiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing and Debugging C Programming and Software Tools N.C
    Testing and Debugging C Programming and Software Tools N.C. State Department of Computer Science Introduction • Majority of software development is testing, debugging, and bug fixing • The best software developers are 10X (!) more productive than other developers; why??? CSC230: C and Software Tools © NC State Computer Science Faculty 2 Why Do Bugs Happen ? • OS problem? Compiler? Hardware? – not likely • Unclear requirements / specifications, constantly changing, unreasonable schedules, … • Lack of mastery of programming tools / language • Inadequate testing procedures • Faulty logic Addressed in this course CSC230: C and Software Tools © NC State Computer Science Faculty 3 Testing Procedures • Types of testing – Unit testing – test each function – Integration testing – test interaction between units and components – System testing – testing complete system – Regression testing – selective retesting – Acceptance Testing – testing of acceptance criteria – Beta Testing – 3rd party testing • Test logging • Bug fixing – test one change at a time – maintain old versions, and log the changes CSC230: C and Software Tools © NC State Computer Science Faculty 4 Test Case Information • Unique Identifier – Black box: name of test input/output files • Input into the program or program unit – Black box: how the user runs and interacts with the program • Could be redirection input and output • Expected output from the program or program unit – What you expect to get based on input and requirements • Stored in a file that can be compared with actual
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerate Software Innovation Through Continuous Quality
    Accelerate Software Innovation Through Continuous Quality 1 Software quality is recognized as the #1 issue IT executives are trying to mitigate. Enterprise organizations strive to accelerate the delivery of a compelling user experience to their customers in order to drive revenue. Software quality is recognized as the #1 issue IT executives are trying to mitigate. QA teams know they have issues and are actively looking for solutions to save time, increase quality, improve security, and more. The most notable difficulties are in identifying the right areas to test, the availability of flexible and reliable test environments and test data, and the realization of benefits from automation. You may be facing many challenges with delivering software to meet the high expectations for quality, cost, and schedule driven by the business. An effective software testing strategy can address these issues. If you’re looking to improve your software quality while achieving your business goals, Parasoft can help. With over 30 years of making testing easier for our customers, we have the innovation you need and the experience you trust. Our extensive continuous quality suite spans every testing need and enables you to reach new heights. 3 QUALITY-FIRST APPROACH You can’t test quality into an application at the end of the software development life cycle (SDLC). You need to ensure that your software development process and practices put a priority on quality- driven development and integrate a comprehensive testing strategy to verify that the application’s functionality meets the requirements. Shift testing left to the start of your development process to bring quality to the forefront.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing in Iterative Product Development Environment Shivageeta S
    Testing In Iterative Product Development Environment Shivageeta S. Choodi [email protected] Software Consultant Novell Bangalore 6th Annual International Software Testing Conference 2006 Novell Software Development India Pvt. Ltd. No.49/1 and 49/3, Garvebhavipalya, 7th mile, Hosur Road Bangalore – 560 068 Software Testing in Iterative Model Abstract Most of the software product companies are adopting iterative model for product development because of the following reasons, • At any given point of time there is a working model of the product. • Increased control over project progress. • Customers are more confident as companies can demonstrate proof of concept in the earlier stages of product development life cycle. Iterative model demands a new process for product development and testing. This study is very critical to Novell, as many of Novell products are adopting iterative model for the development. This paper deals with the testing processes followed in the industry and Novell for iterative model of product development and challenges faced by the test teams in adapting to this new model and changes required from the testing point of view. QAI-STC 2006 1 Software Testing in Iterative Model Contents Testing In Iterative Product Development Environment..........................................................0 Abstract...................................................................................................................................1 1 Background..........................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • CHALLENGES in IOT TESTING © Vadim © Vadim Makhorov
    CHALLENGES IN IOT TESTING © Vadim © Vadim Makhorov Ina Schieferdecker TestNet, May 11, 2016 TALKING PLANTS, ANIMALS AND MORE http://www.iot-a.eu/public 3 © Fraunhofer FOKUS IOT MARKET FORECAST 4 © Fraunhofer FOKUS FURTHER FORECASTS Connected Mobiles worldwide Source: Cisco Global Mobile Traffic Forecast Update, Gartner Global data streams in the Internet per Second in Terabyte Source: ITU ICT Facts and Figures 2015-2020 5 © Fraunhofer FOKUS IOT REFERENCE MODEL (ONE OF MANY) 6 © Fraunhofer FOKUS NEW ARCHITECTURAL PARADIGM Today Upcoming Hierarchical Orchestrated ERP MES SCADA PLC I/O Openess, Dynamicity, Scalability 7 CRITICALITY IMPLY HIGH QUALITY REQUIREMENTS »Implementation of real-time enabled CPS solutions will place high demands on the availability of services and network infrastructure in terms of space, technical quality and reliability.« In: Securing the future of German manufacturing industry. Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0, Forschungsunion, acatech, Apr. 2013. Priorities of Quality, Time and Costs In: Stand und Trends der Qualitätssicherung von vernetzten eingebetteten Systemen, Fraunhofer FOKUS Studie, Aug. 2014 8 © Fraunhofer FOKUS ANYTHING NEW IN IOT TESTING ?! Similar Protocol stacks Protocol testing IETF-based: CoAP, MQTT, etc. Conformance IEC-based: OPC-UA Interoperability ITU-based: M2M Performance Application frameworks Software testing Eclipse: Kura, Scada, etc. Component testing Many others Integration testing System testing Different Security Security testing ISO: common criteria Risk-oriented testing Mitre: CWE list Fuzz testing Others Online testing Data Data quality Semantic real-time data 9 © Fraunhofer FOKUS FURTHER ASPECTS IoT solutions often are … IoT test solutions need to … 1. in harsh, unreliable environments Integrate simulators for environmental conditions Systematically determine reference 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerate Devops with Continuous Integration and Simulation a How-To Guide for Embedded Development
    AN INTEL COMPANY Accelerate DevOps with Continuous Integration and Simulation A How-to Guide for Embedded Development WHEN IT MATTERS, IT RUNS ON WIND RIVER ACCELERATE DEVOPS WITH CONTINUOUS INTEGRATION AND SIMULATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adopting the practice of continuous integration (CI) can be difficult, especially when developing software for embedded systems. Practices such as DevOps and CI are designed to enable engineers to constantly improve and update their products, but these processes can break down without access to the target system, a way to collabo- rate with other teams and team members, and the ability to automate tests. This paper outlines how simulation can enable teams to more effectively manage their integration and test practices. Key points include: • How a combination of actual hardware and simulation models can allow your testing to scale beyond what is possible with hardware alone • Recommended strategies to increase effectiveness of simulated testing • How simulation can automate testing for any kind of target • How simulation can enable better collaboration and more thorough testing • Some problems encountered when using hardware alone, and how simulation can overcome them TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . 2 Introduction . 3 Continuous Integration and Simulation . 3 Hardware-Based Continuous Integration . 4 Using Simulation for Continuous Integration . 6 Simics Virtual Platforms . 7 Workflow Optimization Using Checkpoints . 8 Testing for Faults and Rare Events . 9 Simulation-Based CI and the Product Lifecycle . 10 Conclusion . 11 2 | White Paper ™ AN INTEL COMPANY ACCELERATE DEVOPS WITH CONTINUOUS INTEGRATION AND SIMULATION INTRODUCTION connections between them configured appropriately . There is also CI is an important component of a modern DevOps practice .
    [Show full text]
  • Design of a Flexible Integration Interface for PIL Tests
    1 Design of a Flexible Integration Interface for PIL Tests Abstract This article describes a concept for an integration Modeling environments currently do not provide a uniform interface for simulation with processor-in-the-loop (PIL). PIL exchange format, making it very difficult to transfer data to an is an important tool in model-based software development. It external tool. Another difficultly is the use of manually created allows early verification of the implementation. The concept code since the toolchains available are designed especially for the integration interface is an extension of previous appro- for use with code generated automatically by code genera- aches that includes automatic interface analysis at the source tors. code level and allows the existing development environment to be used. As a result, this solution is highly portable and scal- Processor-in-the-loop (PIL) is used in model-based develop- able. To implement the concept, a prototype for Simulink was ment to test an algorithm that has been derived from a model created and verified based on a test scenario. on a hardware platform or an instruction set simulator. With the help of a code generator, it is possible to implement a model in 1 Introduction source code so that an executable application can be created Over the last few years, the use of model-based methods for that will run in the target environment. software development has become more and more import- ant. The big advantage of model-based methods is the early This article presents a proposal for a scalable integration inter- and continuous verification of the software design [1].
    [Show full text]