# Software Engineering-Deriving Test Cases

The basis path testing method can be applied to a procedural design or to source code. In this section, we present basis path testing as a series of steps. The procedure average, depicted in PDL in figure below, will be used as an example to illustrate each step in the test case design method. Note that average, although an extremely simple algorithm, contains compound conditions and loops. The following steps can be applied to derive the basis set:

The ellipsis (. . .) following paths 4, 5, and 6 indicates that any path through the remainder of the control structure is acceptable. It is often worthwhile to identify predicate nodes as an aid in the derivation of test cases. In this case, nodes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 are predicate nodes.

Each test case is executed and compared to expected results. Once all test cases have been completed, the tester can be sure that all statements in the program have been executed at least once.

It is important to note that some independent paths (e.g., path 1 in our example) cannot be tested in stand-alone fashion. That is, the combination of data required to traverse the path cannot be achieved in the normal flow of the program. In such cases, these paths are tested as part of another path test.

The procedure for deriving the flow graph and even determining a set of basis paths is amenable to mechanization. To develop a software tool that assists in basis path testing, a data structure, called a graph matrix, can be quite useful.

A graph matrix is a square matrix whose size (i.e., number of rows and columns) is equal to the number of nodes on the flow graph. Each row and column corresponds to an identified node, and matrix entries correspond to connections (an edge) between nodes. A simple example of a flow graph and its corresponding graph matrix is shown in figure.

Referring to the figure, each node on the flow graph is identified by numbers, while each edge is identified by letters. A letter entry is made in the matrix to correspond to a connection between two nodes. For example, node 3 is connected to node 4 by edge b.

To this point, the graph matrix is nothing more than a tabular representation of a flow graph. However, by adding a link weight to each matrix entry, the graph matrix can become a powerful tool for evaluating program control structure during testing. The link weight provides additional information about control flow. In its simplest form, the link weight is 1 (a connection exists) or 0 (a connection does not exist). But link weights can be assigned other, more interesting properties:

To illustrate, we use the simplest weighting to indicate connections (0 or 1). The graph matrix in figure above is redrawn as shown in below figure. Each letter has been replaced with a 1, indicating that a connection exists (zeros have been excluded for clarity). Represented in this form, the graph matrix is called a connection matrix.

Referring to figure , each row with two or more entries represents a predicate node. Therefore, performing the arithmetic shown to the right of the connection matrix provides us with still another method for determining cyclomatic complexity .

Beizer provides a thorough treatment of additional mathematical algorithms that can be applied to graph matrices. Using these techniques, the analysis required to design test cases can be partially or fully automated.

**1. Using the design or code as a foundation, draw a corresponding flow graph.**A flow graph is created using the symbols and construction rules . Referring to the PDL for average in above figure, a flow graph is created by numbering those PDL statements that will be mapped into corresponding flow graph nodes. The corresponding flow graph is in figure below.**2. Determine the cyclomatic complexity of the resultant flow graph.**The cyclomatic complexity, V(G), is determined by applying the algorithms . It should be noted that V(G) can be determined without developing a flow graph by counting all conditional statements in the PDL (for the procedure average, compound conditions count as two) and adding 1. Referring to figure,**V(G) = 6 regions****V(G) = 17 edges 13 nodes + 2 = 6****V(G) = 5 predicate nodes + 1 = 6****3. Determine a basis set of linearly independent paths.**The value of V(G) provides the number of linearly independent paths through the program control structure. In the case of procedure average, we expect to specify six paths:**path 1: 1-2-10-11-13**

path 2: 1-2-10-12-13

path 3: 1-2-3-10-11-13

path 4: 1-2-3-4-5-8-9-2-. . .

path 5: 1-2-3-4-5-6-8-9-2-. . .

path 6: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-2-. . .path 2: 1-2-10-12-13

path 3: 1-2-3-10-11-13

path 4: 1-2-3-4-5-8-9-2-. . .

path 5: 1-2-3-4-5-6-8-9-2-. . .

path 6: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-2-. . .

The ellipsis (. . .) following paths 4, 5, and 6 indicates that any path through the remainder of the control structure is acceptable. It is often worthwhile to identify predicate nodes as an aid in the derivation of test cases. In this case, nodes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 are predicate nodes.

**4. Prepare test cases that will force execution of each path in the basis set.**Data should be chosen so that conditions at the predicate nodes are appropriately set as each path is tested. Test cases that satisfy the basis set just described are**Path 1 test case:***value(k) = valid input, where k < i for 2 ≤ i ≤ 100*

value(i) = 999 where 2 ≤ i ≤ 100

Expected results: Correct average based on k values and proper totals.

Note: Path 1 cannot be tested stand-alone but must be tested as part of path 4, 5, and 6 tests.value(i) = 999 where 2 ≤ i ≤ 100

Expected results: Correct average based on k values and proper totals.

Note: Path 1 cannot be tested stand-alone but must be tested as part of path 4, 5, and 6 tests.

**Path 2 test case:***value(1) = 999*

Expected results: Average = 999; other totals at initial values.Expected results: Average = 999; other totals at initial values.

**Path 3 test case:***Attempt to process 101 or more values.*

First 100 values should be valid.

Expected results: Same as test case 1.First 100 values should be valid.

Expected results: Same as test case 1.

**Path 4 test case:***value(i) = valid input where i < 100*

value(k) < minimum where k < i

Expected results: Correct average based on k values and proper totals.value(k) < minimum where k < i

Expected results: Correct average based on k values and proper totals.

**Path 5 test case:***value(i) = valid input where i < 100*

value(k) > maximum where k <= i

Expected results: Correct average based on n values and proper totals.value(k) > maximum where k <= i

Expected results: Correct average based on n values and proper totals.

**Path 6 test case:***value(i) = valid input where i < 100*

Expected results: Correct average based on n values and proper totals.Expected results: Correct average based on n values and proper totals.

Each test case is executed and compared to expected results. Once all test cases have been completed, the tester can be sure that all statements in the program have been executed at least once.

It is important to note that some independent paths (e.g., path 1 in our example) cannot be tested in stand-alone fashion. That is, the combination of data required to traverse the path cannot be achieved in the normal flow of the program. In such cases, these paths are tested as part of another path test.

**Graph Matrices**The procedure for deriving the flow graph and even determining a set of basis paths is amenable to mechanization. To develop a software tool that assists in basis path testing, a data structure, called a graph matrix, can be quite useful.

A graph matrix is a square matrix whose size (i.e., number of rows and columns) is equal to the number of nodes on the flow graph. Each row and column corresponds to an identified node, and matrix entries correspond to connections (an edge) between nodes. A simple example of a flow graph and its corresponding graph matrix is shown in figure.

Referring to the figure, each node on the flow graph is identified by numbers, while each edge is identified by letters. A letter entry is made in the matrix to correspond to a connection between two nodes. For example, node 3 is connected to node 4 by edge b.

To this point, the graph matrix is nothing more than a tabular representation of a flow graph. However, by adding a link weight to each matrix entry, the graph matrix can become a powerful tool for evaluating program control structure during testing. The link weight provides additional information about control flow. In its simplest form, the link weight is 1 (a connection exists) or 0 (a connection does not exist). But link weights can be assigned other, more interesting properties:

**•**The probability that a link (edge) will be executed.**•**The processing time expended during traversal of a link.**•**The memory required during traversal of a link.**•**The resources required during traversal of a link.To illustrate, we use the simplest weighting to indicate connections (0 or 1). The graph matrix in figure above is redrawn as shown in below figure. Each letter has been replaced with a 1, indicating that a connection exists (zeros have been excluded for clarity). Represented in this form, the graph matrix is called a connection matrix.

Referring to figure , each row with two or more entries represents a predicate node. Therefore, performing the arithmetic shown to the right of the connection matrix provides us with still another method for determining cyclomatic complexity .

Beizer provides a thorough treatment of additional mathematical algorithms that can be applied to graph matrices. Using these techniques, the analysis required to design test cases can be partially or fully automated.

Software Engineering-Deriving Test Cases
Reviewed by 1000sourcecodes
on
06:50
Rating: