International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 9

ISSN: 2321-8169
2690 2694

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Prioritization Of Implementation Based Testing Technique For Class Under Test

Prof. Rajkumar V. Panchal

Prof. Gyankamal J. Chhajed

Assistant Professor,
Department of Computer Engineering,
VPCOE,Baramati
Pune University(MH), India
e-mail: [email protected]

Assistant Professor,
Department of Computer Engineering
VPCOE, Baramati
Pune University(MH), India
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract The basic unit of testing in an Object-Oriented (OO) software is a class. The Object-Oriented (OO) classes exhibits different
characteristic. Due to this different characteristics of class testing become more difficult. To address the difficulty of testing the different features
of a class a plethora of Implementation Based Testing Techniques (IBTTs) have been developed. However no one IBTT has been emerged as the
accepted approach. So to find most suitable IBTT to test the class mapping of IBTTs to class is performed. This mapping process provides
feedback to the tester describing the characteristics of class that are suitably tested by testing technique.
In this paper we describe prioritization of Implementation Based Testing Techniques. To give Priority to IBTTs the control flow of each method
is captured, with the help of control flow, complexity of each method is calculated and used. Depending on the complexity of each method and
its suitable testing technique priority is assigned to Implementation Based Testing Techniques.
Keywords- Implementation Based Testing Techniques (IBTTs) ; Object-Oriented (OO) ; control flow ; complexity.

__________________________________________________*****_________________________________________________
I.

INTRODUCTION

The trend in the development of large scale object

oriented system has shifted towards testable, robust models
with a focus on the prevention of faults and system failure. One
process that supports the construction of robust software is
testing. The widespread use of the Object-Oriented (OO)
paradigm has lead many developers to treat the class or class
cluster as the basic test unit in an OO system [12]. However
object oriented classes exhibit different characteristics like
abstraction, encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism,
concurrency and Exception handling complicate class-based
testing.
To address the difficulty of testing the different
features of a class a plethora of Implementation Based Testing
Techniques (IBTTs) have been developed. However no one
IBTTs has emerged as the accepted approach, so to find most
suitable testing technique to test the class mapping of
Implementation Based Testing Techniques to a class is
performed. This mapping process provides feedback to the
tester describing the characteristics of the class that are
suitably tested by Implementation Based Testing Technique
together with the characteristics that are not suitably tested by
any of the testing technique.
In this paper we have proposed a technique for
prioritizing the Implementation Based Testing Techniques.
The priority is assigned to the Implementation Based Testing
Techniques by using the complexity of each method and its
suitable testing technique. To calculate the complexity of each
method control flow of each method is extracted and
complexity is calculated from this control flow. Due to
prioritization of Implementation Based Testing Techniques
number of entities to be analyzed by a tester when selecting
testing techniques can be reduced by 30%.
In the next section we overview terminology and
concepts about object technology and mapping of

Implementation Based Testing Techniques. Section 3

describes the proposed approach. In section 4 we describe
prioritization of Implementation Based Testing Techniques.
Section 5 describes the Validation and Result Analysis.
Section 6 describes the conclusion.
II.

BACKGROUND

This section describes overview terminology and

concepts about object technology and mapping of
Implementation Based Testing Techniques.
Meyer defines a class as a static entity that represents
an abstract data type with a partial or total implementation
[13]. The static description supplied by a class includes a
specification of the features that each object will contain.
These features fall into two Categories: (1) attributes and (2)
routines. Attributes are referred to as data items and instance
variables in other OO languages while routines are referred to
as member functions and methods. Throughout this paper the
terms attributes and routines are used. Each attribute and
routine local (variable or parameter) of a class can be declared
as one of many possible types. These types include: built in
types, user defined types and types provided by specialized
libraries. Some OO languages also permit the use of
parameterized types also referred to as generics that allow the
actual type of the attribute or routine local to be known when
an object of the class is instantiated. Accessibility to class
attributes and routines provides a class with the ability to deny
its clients access to certain features. In Java this mechanism is
implemented using the access specifiers private, protected and
public.
Inheritance allows features of the class to be reused in
another class and permits the class to be extended to include
new features. Polymorphism is the ability of a feature
(attribute or routine) of a class to have many forms; that is the
form of the feature invoked is dependent on the type of the
object instantiated. As a consequence of polymorphism
2690

IJRITCC | September 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 9

ISSN: 2321-8169
2690 2694

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
features can be bound to the object at runtime referred to a
dynamic binding.
A.

Implementation Based Testing Techniques

Implementation based testing of an object oriented

class is defined as the process of operating a class under
specified conditions, observing or recording the results and
making an evaluation of the class. Testing techniques that
generate test information based on the implementation of these
techniques are refer as Implementation Based Testing
Techniques (IBTTs) .
Table 1 summarizes the IBTTs. Column 1 of Table 1
identifies the main researcher that developed the IBTT
described in the corresponding row and the name of the
respective IBTT. Column 2 identifies the class characteristics
that can be suitably tested by the respective IBTT listed in
Column 1 and Column 3 the class characteristics not suitably
tested by the respective IBTT listed in Column 1.The class
characteristics listed in Columns 2 and 3 are deduced from the
references cited in Column 1. Each row in the table delimited
by a hard line represents the information pertaining to a given
IBTT. For example Row 2 represents the information for the
IBTT developed by Buy et al [4]. The name assigned to the
IBTT developed by Buy et al. is Automated Column 1.
Column 2 of Row 2 states that the class characteristics (Private
Attributes, Primitive Types and Simple Control Flow) can be
suitably tested by the Automated technique. Column 3 lists the
characteristics (Recursive Protected Attributes and Public
Attributes) that cannot be suitably tested by the Automated
IBTT. Note that the set of class characteristics listed in
Column 3 of Table 1 i.e. those characteristics not suited to an
IBTT is not exhaustive. These are the Implementation Based
Testing Technique but no one technique has emerged as the
accepted approach because no single technique addresses all
of the complication that class may possess. Thus, the
developer is facing with an ever-expanding choice of testing
approaches and strategies from which to choose. As there is no
single technique that addresses all of the complication of
classes there are many testing strategies that are appropriate
for some kind of classes but inappropriate for other kind
classes complicate the choice of testing for classes.

Researchers
(IBTT Name)
Alexander et al.
[3]
(Polymorphic
Relationships)
Buy et al.
[4]
(Automated)
Harrold et al.
[5]
(Incremental)
Harrold et al.
[6]
(Data-Flow)

Koppol et al. [7]

(Concurrent
Programs)

Mapping IBTTs to Object Oriented Classes

The mapping process accepts a summary of the class

under test and a list summarizing the IBTTs. The output of the
mapping process consists of a list of 3-tuples representing
those class characteristics that can be suitably tested by some
IBTT. In addition the output of the mapping process provides
feedback information informing the tester of any class under
test (CUT) characteristic that cannot be suitably tested by any
IBTT. Each 4-tuple output in the list of characteristics that can
be suitably tested by some IBTT consists of: (1) a
characteristic of the CUT (2) a list of feature pairs (3) a unique
identifier of the IBTT and (4) a priority assigned to the IBTT
by the tester.

Primitive types,
new attributes

Complex variables
e.g. arrays, structs;
references,
polymorphism,
dynamic binding
Features not
exhibiting
concurrency and
synchronization
Large number of
attributes

Features
exhibiting
concurrency and
synchronization
Kung et al.
Primitive types,
[8]
simple control
(Object State)
flow
Sinha et al.
Exception objects Attributes/ local
[9]
and variables,
variables
(Exceptionreferences to
outside exception
Handling)
exception objects
mechanism
Souter et al.
Objects in the
Primitive types,
[10]
presence of
references to
(OMEN)
polymorphism,
primitive types
aliasing and
inheritance
Table 1: Summary of IBTTs [2].

Each feature pair consists of the feature's name and whether it

is an attribute or routine.
The proposed approach prioritizes the Implementation Based
Testing Techniques automatically. In the mapping process
priority is assigned but by the tester, manually according to the
tester view point.
III.

B.

Class Characteristics
Suited To
Not Suited To
Primitive and user Local variables of
defined types,
routines assigned
polymorphism,
return values
dynamic binding
Primitive types,
Complex variables
simple control
e.g. arrays, structs;
flow
references
Inherited classes
Classes with no
parents

THE PROPOSED APPROACH

In this section proposed approach to prioritize the

IBTT is presented. Our approach is based on the control flow
and complexity of method of class under test. To assign
priority to the IBTTs firstly the control flow of each method of
class under test is captured. By using the control flow of each
method complexity of each method is calculated. Depending
on the complexity of each method and its suitable IBTT
priority is assigned to Implementation Based Testing
Technique.
A. Control Flow
The goals of software testing are to assess and improve
the quality of software. Software testing has proven to be
difficult in the absence of design information. Without an
adequate understanding of a programs structure, it is difficult
to test it properly. Program recognition is a technology that
can help testers to recover a programs design and
2691

IJRITCC | September 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 9

ISSN: 2321-8169
2690 2694

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
consequently, make software testing effective. Syntactically, a
program is a sequence of statements. If the flow of the
program can be recovered and used to analyze the testing
paths automatically then generating test data based on
adequate testing criteria will help testers to understand the
program structure and efficiently improve the software quality.
Control flow of any method consists of following three
types of control structure.
1) Sequence
2) Repetition
3) Selection
Which are the elementary building blocks for all
programs.
1. Sequential -: The most straightforward control structure is
the sequence. A list of what to do, step by step.
2. Repetition -: Repetition is also called iteration and is used
when something is repeated over and over again, so anything
where the program goes round in a loop. Typically
programmed using code such as WHILE, REPEAT and FOR
statements.
3. Selection -: Making Decision Selection is used to make a
decision to go down one path or another, often programmed
using code such as an IF statement or a CASE statement.
B.
Complexity
Software complexity is one branch of software metrics
that is focused on direct measurement of software attributes.
There are hundreds of software complexity measures ranging
from the simple such as source lines of code to the esoteric
such as the number of variable definition/usage associations.
The most basic complexity measure the number of lines of
code does not meet the open reengineering criterion since it is
extremely sensitive to programming language, coding style
and textual formatting of the source code. The cyclomatic
complexity measure which measures the amount of decision
logic in a source code function does meet the open
reengineering criterion. It is completely independent of text
formatting and is nearly independent of programming
language.
Ideally complexity measures should have both
descriptive and prescriptive components. Descriptive measures
identify software that is error-prone, hard to understand, hard
to modify, hard to test, and so on. Prescriptive measures
identify operational steps to help control software for example
splitting complex modules into several simpler ones or
indicating the amount of testing that should be performed on
given modules.
IV.

PRIORITIZATION OF IBTTS

For priority assignment first complexity of each

routine is calculated and then depending on the complexity,
priority is assigned. There is a strong connection between

complexity and testing and the structured testing methodology

makes this connection explicit.
A. Relationship between Complexity and Testing
First complexity is a common source of error in
software. This is true in both an abstract and a concrete sense.
In the abstract sense complexity beyond a certain point defeats
the human minds ability to perform accurate symbolic
manipulations and errors result. The same psychological
factors that limit peoples ability to do mental manipulations
of more than the infamous "7 + /- 2" objects simultaneously
[MILLER] apply to software. Structured programming
techniques can push this barrier further away, but not
eliminate it entirely. The cyclomatic complexity measure
correlates with errors in software modules. Other factors being
equal the more complex a module is the more likely it is to
contain errors. Also beyond a certain threshold of complexity
the likelihood that a module contains errors increases sharply.
Because of this reason many developer limit the cyclomatic
complexity of their software modules in an attempt to increase
overall reliability. A detailed recommendation for complexity
limitation is given in table 2.
Cyclomatic Complexity

Risk Summary

1-10

Simple, low risk

11-20

Moderate complexity,
medium risk

21-50

Complex, high risk

51+

Very high risk

Table 2: Complexity limitation

Second, complexity can be used directly to allocate testing
effort by leveraging the connection between complexity and
error to concentrate testing effort on the most error-prone
software.
B.
Prioritization
McCabe proposed a way to measuring flow
complexity of a method which basically counts one for each
place where the flow changes from a linear flow. His
algorithm translated at least approximately into Java terms is
as follows. His measurement was designed before exceptions
and threads were used in programming languages.
Start with a count of one for the method. Add one for
each of the following flow-related elements that are found in
the method.

2692
IJRITCC | September 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 9

ISSN: 2321-8169
2690 2694

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Category
Methods

Add one for each of the following

Each return that isn't the last statement
of a method

Selection
Loops

if, else, case, default

for, while, do-while, break and continue

Operators
Exceptions
Threads

&&,||,? and :
catch, finally, throw or throws clause
start() call on a thread

Table 3: flow-related elements

To calculate the complexity of each routine in class
information given above is used. When method start count is
set to one then one is added to the complexity count whenever
flow-related elements found in the method such as if, for,
while etc. as information given above. After calculation of
complexity of each method in a class priority is assigned to the
Implementation Based Testing Technique as follow.
First IBTT and methods that are suitably tested by
that IBTT is observed. Then sum of complexity of this method
is calculated. This step is repeated until all the IBTT present in
the output of suitable testing technique is over (i.e. until Tuple
List is complete).
As information given in table 2 more complex a
module or method more likely it is to contain errors. So there
is need to test these more complex module or method to
remove errors. Thats why IBTT whose sum of complexity is
highest have given the first priority and this Implementation
Based Testing Technique is the best testing technique to test
the Class Under Test. Less than that complexity has given
second priority and so on.
V.

mapping tool generate classtest and control flow of each

method in class. Classtest shows list of attribute and routine
that are suitably tested by Implementation Based Testing
Technique. Analyzing the result of classtest gives observation
that Polymorphic Relationship, Automated, Data Flow and
Object State testing technique mostly used. Figure 2 shows the
graph of validation.

Figure 1: Classtest with priority.

VALIDATION AND RESULT ANALYSIS

In this section we discus Validation and Result

Analysis of our prioritization of IBTTs
A.

Result Analysis

For result analysis we have tested the class

Admission written in java language. Class Admission is
implemented to display list of eligible candidate. Class
Admission declares six variables, four methods and one
constructor.
We tested class Admission by using tool developed
for prioritization of IBTTs. The output generated by class
Admission is shown in the figure 1.
B.

Validation

In order to validate the proposed approach of

prioritization of IBTTs, tool is checked by using different java
application. Here six different java applications having various
object oriented characteristics is taken. Input these classes to

Figure 2: Result validation

VI.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we presented a prioritization of

Implementation Based Testing Techniques. This approach
captures the control flow of each method of class under test,
calculate complexity and assign priority IBTTs. The control
flow of method gives information about control structure used
in the method and flow of data in method. By using the control
flow of each method of class under test complexity of each
method is calculated.
The complexity is measured by using Cyclomatic
complexity. Cyclomatic complexity measures the amount of
decision logic in a source code. Using this Cyclomatic
complexity, complexity of each method is measured.
2693

IJRITCC | September 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 9

ISSN: 2321-8169
2690 2694

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Depending on the complexity of each method and its IBTTs
priority is assigned to Implementation Based Testing
Techniques. Due to priority assigned to Implementation Based
Testing Techniques the work of tester to select testing
technique is much more reduced.

AUTHORS

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]

Peter J. Clarke, Brian A. Malloy. A Taxonomy of OO

Classes to Support the Mapping of Testing
Techniques to a Class, in Journal of Object
Technology, vol.4, no. 5,JulyAugust 2005.
Peter J.Clarke and Brian Malloy. "Mapping
Implementation Based Testing Techniques to ObjectOriented Classes", Technical Report, 2004-08.
R. T. Alexander and A. J. Offutt. "Criteria for testing
polymorphic relationships, In Proceedings of the
11th International Symposium on Software
Reliability Engineering, pages 15-24.
U. Buy, A. Orso, and M. Pezze. Automated Testing
of Classes, In Proc. of ISSTA.Portland, OR, August
2000.
M. J. Harrold, J. D. McGregor, and K. J.Fitzpatrick.
Incremental Testing of Object-Oriented Class
Structures, InProc. of ICSE,Melbourne, Australia,
pages 6880.
M. J. Harrold and G. Rothermel. Peforming Data
Flow Testing on Classes, In Proc.of ACM SIGSOFT
Symp. FSE.
P. V. Koppol, R. H. Carver, and K. C. Tai.
"Incremental integration testing ofconcurrent
programs", IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 28(6):607-623.
D. Kung, Y. Lu, N. Venugopalan, P. Hsia, Y.
Toyoshima, C. Chen, and J. Gao."Object state testing
and fault analysis for reliable software systems", In
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on
Reliability Engineering, pages 239-244.
S. Sinha and M. J. Harrold. "Analysis and testing of
programs with exception handling"' constructs. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(9):849871.
A. L. Souter and L. L. Pollock. OMEN: A strategy
for testing object-oriented software.
Peter Clarke and Brian Malloy. A Unifed Approach
to Implementation-Based Testing of Classes.
R. V. Binder. Testing Object-Oriented Systems:
Models, Patterns, and Tools. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Massachusetts, 2000.
B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction.
Prentice Hall PTR, 1997.

Panchal Rajkumar V. received his B.E. degree in

Information Technology (First Class with Distinction) in the
year 2009 from SRTMU university and M.Tech Degree (First
Class) in computer Engineering in 2012 From Dr.BATU
university. He is GATE qualified. He has 2 years of teaching
experience at undergraduate level. Currently he is working as
assistant professor in Department of Computer Engineering of
VPCOE, Baramati, Pune University. His research interests are
Software Testing and Image Processing.

Gyankamal Chhajed obtained Engineering degree (B.E.) in

Computer Science and Engineering in the year 1991-95 from
S.G.G.S.I.E.T, Nanded and Postgraduate degree ( M.Tech. ) in
Computer Engineering from College of Engineering, Pune
(COEP) in the year 2005-2007 both with distinction . She is
approved Undergraduate and Postgraduate teacher of Pune
university and having about 18 yrs. of experience. She guided
many projects at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Level.
Gyankamal authored a book and has 23 publications at the
national, international level for Conferences and Journal. She
is life member of the ISTE & International Association
IACSIT. Her research interests include Steganography and
Watermarking, Image processing , Data mining and
Information Retrieval , Biomedical Engineering.

2694
IJRITCC | September 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________