UNIT – 2: TRANSACTION FLOW TESTING AND DATA FLOW

TESTING

TRANSACTION FLOWS:

 INTRODUCTION:
o A transaction is a unit of work seen from a system user's point of view.
o A transaction consists of a sequence of operations, some of which are performed
by a system, persons or devices that are outside of the system.
o Transaction begin with Birth-that is they are created as a result of some external
act.
o At the conclusion of the transaction's processing, the transaction is no longer in
the system.
o Example of a transaction: A transaction for an online information retrieval

UNIT – 2
system might consist of the following steps or tasks:
 Accept input (tentative birth)
 Validate input (birth)
 Transmit acknowledgement to requester
 Do input processing
 Search file
 Request directions from user
 Accept input
 Validate input
 Process request
 Update file
 Transmit output
 Record transaction in log and clean up (death)
 TRANSACTION FLOW GRAPHS:
o Transaction flows are introduced as a representation of a system's processing.
o The methods that were applied to control flow graphs are then used for functional
testing.
o Transaction flows and transaction flow testing are to the independent system
tester what control flows are path testing are to the programmer.
o The transaction flow graph is to create a behavioral model of the program that
leads to functional testing.
o The transaction flowgraph is a model of the structure of the system's behavior
(functionality).
o An example of a Transaction Flow is as follows:

Dept. of CSE Page 40 Dept. of CSE Page 41

 Figure 3.2: Nodes with multiple outlinks

Mergers:Transaction flow junction points are potentially as troublesome as transaction flow splits.
There are three types of junctions: (1) Ordinary Junction (2) Absorption (3) Conjugation
0. Ordinary Junction: An ordinary junction which is similar to the
junction in a control flow graph. A transaction can arrive either on one
link or the other. (See Figure 3.3 (a))
1. Absorption: In absorption case, the predator transaction absorbs
prey transaction. The prey gone but the predator retains its identity.
(See Figure 3.3 (b))
Figure 3.1: An Example of a Transaction Flow 2. Conjugation: In conjugation case, the two parent transactions merge
to form a new daughter. In keeping with the biological flavor this case
 USAGE: is called as conjugation.(See Figure 3.3 (c))
o Transaction flows are indispensable for specifying requirements of complicated
systems, especially online systems.
o A big system such as an air traffic control or airline reservation system, has not
hundreds, but thousands of different transaction flows.
o The flows are represented by relatively simple flowgraphs, many of which have a
single straight-through path.
o Loops are infrequent compared to control flowgraphs.
o The most common loop is used to request a retry after user input errors. An ATM
system, for example, allows the user to try, say three times, and will take the card
away the fourth time.
 COMPLICATIONS:
o In simple cases, the transactions have a unique identity from the time they're
created to the time they're completed.
o In many systems the transactions can give birth to others, and transactions can
also merge.
o Births:There are three different possible interpretations of the decision symbol,
or nodes with two or more out links. It can be a Decision, Biosis or a Mitosis.
1. Decision:Here the transaction will take one alternative or the other Figure 3.3: Transaction Flow Junctions and Mergers
alternative but not both. (See Figure 3.2 (a))
2. Biosis:Here the incoming transaction gives birth to a new transaction, We have no problem with ordinary decisions and junctions. Births, absorptions, and conjugations
and both transaction continue on their separate paths, and the parent are as problematic for the software designer as they are for the software modeler and the test
retains it identity. (See Figure 3.2 (b)) designer; as a consequence, such points have more than their share of bugs. The common
3. Mitosis:Here the parent transaction is destroyed and two new problems are: lost daughters, wrongful deaths, and illegitimate births.
transactions are created.(See Figure 3.2 (c))

Dept. of CSE Page 42 Dept. of CSE Page 43

 log.

TRANSACTION FLOW TESTING TECHNIQUES:

 DATA FLOW TESTING:
o Data flow testing is the name given to a family of test strategies based on
selecting paths through the program's control flow in order to explore sequences
 GET THE TRANSACTIONS FLOWS: of events related to the status of data objects.
o Complicated systems that process a lot of different, complicated transactions o For example, pick enough paths to assure that every data object has been
should have explicit representations of the transactions flows, or the equivalent. initialized prior to use or that all defined objects have been used for something.
o Transaction flows are like control flow graphs, and consequently we should o Motivation:
expect to have them in increasing levels of detail.
o The system's design documentation should contain an overview section that
it is our belief that, just as one would not feel confident about a
details the main transaction flows.
program without executing every statement in it as part of some
o Detailed transaction flows are a mandatory pre requisite to the rational design of a
test, one should not feel confident about a program without having
system's functional test.
seen the effect of using the value produced by each and every
 INSPECTIONS, REVIEWS AND WALKTHROUGHS: computation.
o Transaction flows are natural agenda for system reviews or inspections.
o In conducting the walkthroughs, you should:
 Discuss enough transaction types to account for 98%-99% of the  DATA FLOW MACHINES:
transaction the system is expected to process. o There are two types of data flow machines with different architectures. (1) Von
 Discuss paths through flows in functional rather than technical terms. Neumann machnes (2) Multi-instruction, multi-data machines (MIMD).
 Ask the designers to relate every flow to the specification and to show o Von Neumann Machine Architecture:
how that transaction, directly or indirectly, follows from the  Most computers today are von-neumann machines.
requirements.  This architecture features interchangeable storage of instructions and
o Make transaction flow testing the corner stone of system functional testing just as data in the same memory units.
path testing is the corner stone of unit testing.  The Von Neumann machine Architecture executes one instruction at
o Select additional flow paths for loops, extreme values, and domain boundaries. a time in the following, micro instruction sequence:
o Design more test cases to validate all births and deaths. 1. Fetch instruction from memory
o Publish and distribute the selected test paths through the transaction flows as 2. Interpret instruction
early as possible so that they will exert the maximum beneficial effect on the 3. Fetch operands
project. 4. Process or Execute
o 5. Store result
 PATH SELECTION: 6. Increment program counter
o Select a set of covering paths (c1+c2) using the analogous criteria you used for 7. GOTO 1
structural path testing. o Multi-instruction, Multi-data machines (MIMD) Architecture:
o Select a covering set of paths based on functionally sensible transactions as you  These machines can fetch several instructions and objects in parallel.
would for control flow graphs.  They can also do arithmetic and logical operations simultaneously on
o Try to find the most tortuous, longest, strangest path from the entry to the exit of different data objects.
the transaction flow.  The decision of how to sequence them depends on the compiler.
 PATH SENSITIZATION:  BUG ASSUMPTION:
o Most of the normal paths are very easy to sensitize-80% - 95% transaction flow o The bug assumption for data-flow testing strategies is that control flow is
coverage (c1+c2) is usually easy to achieve. generally correct and that something has gone wrong with the software so that
o The remaining small percentage is often very difficult. data objects are not available when they should be, or silly things are being done
o Sensitization is the act of defining the transaction. If there are sensitization to data objects.
problems on the easy paths, then bet on either a bug in transaction flows or a o Also, if there is a control-flow problem, we expect it to have symptoms that can be
design bug. detected by data-flow analysis.
 PATH INSTRUMENTATION: o Although we'll be doing data-flow testing, we won't be using data flowgraphs as
o Instrumentation plays a bigger role in transaction flow testing than in unit path such. Rather, we'll use an ordinary control flowgraph annotated to show what
testing. happens to the data objects of interest at the moment.
o The information of the path taken for a given transaction must be kept with that  DATA FLOW GRAPHS:
transaction and can be recorded by a central transaction dispatcher or by the o The data flow graph is a graph consisting of nodes and directed links.
individual processing modules.
o In some systems, such traces are provided by the operating systems or a running

Dept. of CSE Page 44 Dept. of CSE Page 45

  A record written.
2. Killed or Undefined (k):
 An object is killed on undefined when it is released or
otherwise made unavailable.
 When its contents are no longer known with certitude (with
aboslute certainity / perfectness).
 Release of dynamically allocated objects back to the
availability pool.
 Return of records.
 The old top of the stack after it is popped.
 An assignment statement can kill and redefine
immediately. For example, if A had been previously
defined and we do a new assignment such as A : = 17, we
have killed A's previous value and redefined A
3. Usage (u):
 A variable is used for computation (c) when it appears on
the right hand side of an assignment statement.
 A file record is read or written.
 It is used in a Predicate (p) when it appears directly in a
predicate.
DATA FLOW ANOMALIES:
An anomaly is denoted by a two-character sequence of actions.
For example, ku means that the object is killed and then used, where as dd means that the object
is defined twice without an intervening usage.
What is an anomaly is depend on the application.
There are nine possible two-letter combinations for d, k and u. some are bugs, some are
suspicious, and some are okay.
0. dd :- probably harmless but suspicious. Why define the object twice
without an intervening usage?
1. dk :- probably a bug. Why define the object without using it?
2. du :- the normal case. The object is defined and then used.
Figure 3.4: Example of a data flow graph 3. kd :- normal situation. An object is killed and then redefined.
4. kk :- harmless but probably buggy. Did you want to be sure it was
o We will use an control graph to show what happens to data objects of interest at really killed?
that moment. 5. ku :- a bug. the object doesnot exist.
o Our objective is to expose deviations between the data flows we have and the 6. ud :- usually not a bug because the language permits reassignment at
data flows we want. almost any time.
o Data Object State and Usage: 7. uk :- normal situation.
 Data Objects can be created, killed and used. 8. uu :- normal situation.
 They can be used in two distinct ways: (1) In a Calculation (2) As a In addition to the two letter situations, there are six single letter situations.
part of a Control Flow Predicate. We will use a leading dash to mean that nothing of interest (d,k,u) occurs prior to the action noted
 The following symbols denote these possibilities: along the entry-exit path of interest.
1. Defined: d - defined, created, initialized etc A trailing dash to mean that nothing happens after the point of interest to the exit.
2. Killed or undefined: k - killed, undefined, released etc They possible anomalies are:
3. Usage: u - used for something (c - used in Calculations, p 0. -k :- possibly anomalous because from the entrance to this point on
- used in a predicate) the path, the variable had not been defined. We are killing a variable
 1. Defined (d): that does not exist.
 An object is defined explicitly when it appears in a data 1. -d :- okay. This is just the first definition along this path.
declaration. 2. -u :- possibly anomalous. Not anomalous if the variable is global and
 Or implicitly when it appears on the left hand side of the has been previously defined.
assignment. 3. k- :- not anomalous. The last thing done on this path was to kill the
 It is also to be used to mean that a file has been opened. variable.
 A dynamically allocated object has been allocated. 4. d- :- possibly anomalous. The variable was defined and not used on
 Something is pushed on to the stack. this path. But this could be a global definition.

Dept. of CSE Page 46 Dept. of CSE Page 47

 5. u- :- not anomalous. The variable was used but not killed on this path.
Although this sequence is not anomalous, it signals a frequent kind of
bug. If d and k mean dynamic storage allocation and return
respectively, this could be an instance in which a dynamically
allocated object was not returned to the pool after use.
DATA FLOW ANOMALY STATE GRAPH:
Data flow anomaly model prescribes that an object can be in one of four distinct states:
0. K :- undefined, previously killed, doesnot exist
1. D :- defined but not yet used for anything
2. U :- has been used for computation or in predicate
3. A :- anomalous
These capital letters (K,D,U,A) denote the state of the variable and should not be confused with
the program action, denoted by lower case letters.
Unforgiving Data - Flow Anomaly Flow Graph:Unforgiving model, in which once a variable
becomes anomalous it can never return to a state of grace.

Figure 3.6: Forgiving Data Flow Anomaly State

Graph

This graph has three normal and three anomalous states and he considers the kk
sequence not to be anomalous. The difference between this state graph and
Figure 3.5 is that redemption is possible. A proper action from any of the three
anomalous states returns the variable to a useful working state.

The point of showing you this alternative anomaly state graph is to demonstrate
that the specifics of an anomaly depends on such things as language, application,
context, or even your frame of mind. In principle, you must create a new definition
of data flow anomaly (e.g., a new state graph) in each situation. You must at least
verify that the anomaly definition behind the theory or imbedded in a data flow
anomaly test tool is appropriate to your situation.
Figure 3.5: Unforgiving Data Flow Anomaly State
Graph STATIC Vs DYNAMIC ANOMALY DETECTION:
Static analysis is analysis done on source code without actually executing it. For example: source
Assume that the variable starts in the K state - that is, it has not been defined or code syntax error detection is the static analysis result.
does not exist. If an attempt is made to use it or to kill it (e.g., say that we're talking Dynamic analysis is done on the fly as the program is being executed and is based on
about opening, closing, and using files and that 'killing' means closing), the intermediate values that result from the program's execution. For example: a division by zero
object's state becomes anomalous (state A) and, once it is anomalous, no action warning is the dynamic result.
can return the variable to a working state. If it is defined (d), it goes into the D, or If a problem, such as a data flow anomaly, can be detected by static analysis methods, then it
defined but not yet used, state. If it has been defined (D) and redefined (d) or doesnot belongs in testing - it belongs in the language processor.
killed without use (k), it becomes anomalous, while usage (u) brings it to the U There is actually a lot more static analysis for data flow analysis for data flow anomalies going on
state. If in U, redefinition (d) brings it to D, u keeps it in U, and k kills it. in current language processors.
For example, language processors which force variable declarations can detect (-u) and (ku)
anomalies.
Forgiving Data - Flow Anomaly Flow Graph:Forgiving model is an alternate model where
But still there are many things for which current notions of static analysis are INADEQUATE.
redemption (recover) from the anomalous state is possible.
Why Static Analysis isn't enough? There are many things for which current notions of static
analysis are inadequate. They are:
 Dead Variables:Although it is often possible to prove that a variable
is dead or alive at a given point in the program, the general problem is
unsolvable.

Dept. of CSE Page 48 Dept. of CSE Page 49

  Arrays:Arrays are problematic in that the array is defined or killed as nodes and entry nodes.
a single object, but reference is to specific locations within the array. 1. Exit nodes are dummy nodes placed at the outgoing arrowheads of
Array pointers are usually dynamically calculated, so there's no way exit statements (e.g., END, RETURN), to complete the graph.
to do a static analysis to validate the pointer value. In many Similarly, entry nodes are dummy nodes placed at entry statements
languages, dynamically allocated arrays contain garbage unless (e.g., BEGIN) for the same reason.
explicitly initialized and therefore, -u anomalies are possible. 2. The outlink of simple statements (statements with only one outlink)
 Records and Pointers:The array problem and the difficulty with are weighted by the proper sequence of data-flow actions for that
pointers is a special case of multipart data structures. We have the statement. Note that the sequence can consist of more than one
same problem with records and the pointers to them. Also, in many letter. For example, the assignment statement A:= A + B in most
applications we create files and their names dynamically and there's languages is weighted by cd or possibly ckd for variable A.
no way to determine, without execution, whether such objects are in Languages that permit multiple simultaneous assignments and/or
the proper state on a given path or, for that matter, whether they exist compound statements can have anomalies within the statement. The
at all. sequence must correspond to the order in which the object code will
 Dynamic Subroutine and Function Names in a Call:subroutine or be executed for that variable.
function name is a dynamic variable in a call. What is passed, or a 3. Predicate nodes (e.g., IF-THEN-ELSE, DO WHILE, CASE) are
combination of subroutine names and data objects, is constructed on weighted with the p - use(s) on every outlink, appropriate to that
a specific path. There's no way, without executing the path, to outlink.
determine whether the call is correct or not. 4. Every sequence of simple statements (e.g., a sequence of nodes with
 False Anomalies:Anomalies are specific to paths. Even a "clear bug" one inlink and one outlink) can be replaced by a pair of nodes that
such as ku may not be a bug if the path along which the anomaly exist has, as weights on the link between them, the concatenation of link
is unachievable. Such "anomalies" are false anomalies. weights.
Unfortunately, the problem of determining whether a path is or is not 5. If there are several data-flow actions on a given link for a given
achievable is unsolvable. variable, then the weight of the link is denoted by the sequence of
 Recoverable Anomalies and Alternate State Graphs:What actions on that link for that variable.
constitutes an anomaly depends on context, application, and 6. Conversely, a link with several data-flow actions on it can be replaced
semantics. How does the compiler know which model I have in mind? by a succession of equivalent links, each of which has at most one
It can't because the definition of "anomaly" is not fundamental. The data-flow action for any variable.
language processor must have a built-in anomaly definition with which Let us consider the example:
you may or may not (with good reason) agree.
 Concurrency, Interrupts, System Issues:As soon as we get away
from the simple single-task uniprocessor environment and start
thinking in terms of systems, most anomaly issues become vastly
more complicated. How often do we define or create data objects at
an interrupt level so that they can be processed by a lower-priority
routine? Interrupts can make the "correct" anomalous and the
"anomalous" correct. True concurrency (as in an MIMD machine) and
pseudoconcurrency (as in multiprocessing) systems can do the same
to us. Much of integration and system testing is aimed at detecting
data-flow anomalies that cannot be detected in the context of a single
routine.
Although static analysis methods have limits, they are worth using and a continuing trend in
language processor design has been better static analysis methods, especially for data flow
anomaly detection. That's good because it means there's less for us to do as testers and we have
far too much to do as it is.
DATA FLOW MODEL:
The data flow model is based on the program's control flow graph - Don't confuse that with the
program's data flowgraph..
Here we annotate each link with symbols (for example, d, k, u, c, p) or sequences of symbols (for
example, dd, du, ddd) that denote the sequence of data operations on that link with respect to the
variable of interest. Such annotations are called link weights.
The control flow graph structure is same for every variable: it is the weights that change.
Components of the model:
0. To every statement there is a node, whose name is unique. Every
node has at least one outlink and at least one inlink except for exit

Dept. of CSE Page 50 Dept. of CSE Page 51

 Figure 3.7: Program Example (PDL)

Figure 3.10: Control flowgraph annotated for Z data

flow.

Figure 3.8: Unannotated flowgraph for example

program in Figure 3.7

Figure 3.11: Control flowgraph annotated for V data

flow.

Figure 3.9: Control flowgraph annotated for X and Y

data flows.

Dept. of CSE Page 52 Dept. of CSE Page 53

 For variable X and Y:In Figure 3.9, because variables X and Y are used only on
link (1,3), any test that starts at the entry satisfies this criterion (for variables X and
Y, but not for all variables as required by the strategy).

For variable Z: The situation for variable Z (Figure 3.10) is more complicated
STRATEGIES OF DATA FLOW TESTING: because the variable is redefined in many places. For the definition on link (1,3)
we must exercise paths that include subpaths (1,3,4) and (1,3,5). The definition
on link (4,5) is covered by any path that includes (5,6), such as subpath
(1,3,4,5,6, ...). The (5,6) definition requires paths that include subpaths (5,6,7,4)
and (5,6,7,8).
 INTRODUCTION:
o Data Flow Testing Strategies are structural strategies. For variable V: Variable V (Figure 3.11) is defined only once on link (1,3).
o In contrast to the path-testing strategies, data-flow strategies take into account Because V has a predicate use at node 12 and the subsequent path to the end
what happens to data objects on the links in addition to the raw connectivity of the must be forced for both directions at node 12, the all-du-paths strategy for this
graph. variable requires that we exercise all loop-free entry/exit paths and at least one
o In other words, data flow strategies require data-flow link weights (d,k,u,c,p). path that includes the loop caused by (11,4). Note that we must test paths that
o Data Flow Testing Strategies are based on selecting test path segments (also include both subpaths (3,4,5) and (3,5) even though neither of these has V
called sub paths) that satisfy some characteristic of data flows for all data definitions. They must be included because they provide alternate du paths to the
objects. V use on link (5,6). Although (7,4) is not used in the test set for variable V, it will be
o For example, all subpaths that contain a d (or u, k, du, dk). included in the test set that covers the predicate uses of array variable V() and U.
o A strategy X is stronger than another strategy Y if all test cases produced under
Y are included in those produced under X - conversely for weaker. The all-du-paths strategy is a strong criterion, but it does not take as many tests
 TERMINOLOGY: as it might seem at first because any one test simultaneously satisfies the
1. Definition-Clear Path Segment, with respect to variable X, is a connected criterion for several definitions and uses of several different variables.
sequence of links such that X is (possibly) defined on the first link and not
redefined or killed on any subsequent link of that path segment. ll paths in Figure 1. All Uses Startegy (AU):The all uses strategy is that at least one definition clear
3.9 are definition clear because variables X and Y are defined only on the first link path from every definition of every variable to every use of that definition be
(1,3) and not thereafter. In Figure 3.10, we have a more complicated situation. exercised under some test. Just as we reduced our ambitions by stepping down
The following path segments are definition-clear: (1,3,4), (1,3,5), (5,6,7,4), from all paths (P) to branch coverage (C2), say, we can reduce the number of test
(7,8,9,6,7), (7,8,9,10), (7,8,10), (7,8,10,11). Subpath (1,3,4,5) is not cases by asking that the test set should include at least one path segment from
definition-clear because the variable is defined on (1,3) and again on (4,5). For every definition to every use that can be reached by that definition.
practice, try finding all the definition-clear subpaths for this routine (i.e., for all
variables). For variable V: In Figure 3.11, ADUP requires that we include subpaths (3,4,5)
2. Loop-Free Path Segment is a path segment for which every node in it is visited and (3,5) in some test because subsequent uses of V, such as on link (5,6), can
atmost once. For Example, path (4,5,6,7,8,10) in Figure 3.10 is loop free, but path be reached by either alternative. In AU either (3,4,5) or (3,5) can be used to start
(10,11,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12) is not because nodes 10 and 11 are each visited twice. paths, but we don't have to use both. Similarly, we can skip the (8,10) link if we've
3. Simple path segment is a path segment in which at most one node is visited included the (8,9,10) subpath. Note the hole. We must include (8,9,10) in some
twice. For example, in Figure 3.10, (7,4,5,6,7) is a simple path segment. A simple test cases because that's the only way to reach the c use at link (9,10) - but
path segment is either loop-free or if there is a loop, only one node is involved. suppose our bug for variable V is on link (8,10) after all? Find a covering set of
4. A du path from node i to k is a path segment such that if the last link has a paths under AU for Figure 3.11.
computational use of X, then the path is simple and definition-clear; if the
penultimate (last but one) node is j - that is, the path is (i,p,q,...,r,s,t,j,k) and link 2. All p-uses/some c-uses strategy (APU+C) : For every variable and every
(j,k) has a predicate use - then the path from i to j is both loop-free and definition of that variable, include at least one definition free path from the
definition-clear. definition to every predicate use; if there are definitions of the variables that are
STRATEGIES: The structural test strategies discussed below are based on the program's control not covered by the above prescription, then add computational use test cases as
flowgraph. They differ in the extent to which predicate uses and/or computational uses of variables required to cover every definition.
are included in the test set. Various types of data flow testing strategies in decreasing order of their
effectiveness are: For variable Z:In Figure 3.10, for APU+C we can select paths that all take the
upper link (12,13) and therefore we do not cover the c-use of Z: but that's okay
0. All - du Paths (ADUP): The all-du-paths (ADUP) strategy is the strongest according to the strategy's definition because every definition is covered. Links
data-flow testing strategy discussed here. It requires that every du path from (1,3), (4,5), (5,6), and (7,8) must be included because they contain definitions for
every definition of every variable to every use of that definition be exercised under variable Z. Links (3,4), (3,5), (8,9), (8,10), (9,6), and (9,10) must be included
some test. because they contain predicate uses of Z. Find a covering set of test cases under
APU+C for all variables in this example - it only takes two tests.

Dept. of CSE Page 54 Dept. of CSE Page 55

 For variable V:In Figure 3.11, APU+C is achieved for V by
(1,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12[upper], 13,2) and
(1,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12[lower], 13,2). Note that the c-use at (9,10) need not be
included under the APU+C criterion.

3. All c-uses/some p-uses strategy (ACU+P) : The all c-uses/some p-uses

strategy (ACU+P) is to first ensure coverage by computational use cases and if
any definition is not covered by the previously selected paths, add such predicate
use cases as are needed to assure that every definition is included in some test.

For variable Z: In Figure 3.10, ACU+P coverage is achieved for Z by path

(1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10, 11,12,13[lower], 2), but the predicate uses of several definitions
are not covered. Specifically, the (1,3) definition is not covered for the (3,5) p-use,
the (7,8) definition is not covered for the (8,9), (9,6) and (9, 10) p-uses.

The above examples imply that APU+C is stronger than branch

coverage but ACU+P may be weaker than, or incomparable to,
branch coverage.

4. All Definitions Strategy (AD) : The all definitions strategy asks only every
definition of every variable be covered by atleast one use of that variable, be that
use a computational use or a predicate use.

For variable Z: Path (1,3,4,5,6,7,8, . . .) satisfies this criterion for variable Z,

whereas any entry/exit path satisfies it for variable V.

From the definition of this strategy we would expect it to be weaker

than both ACU+P and APU+C.

5. All Predicate Uses (APU), All Computational Uses (ACU) Strategies : The all Figure 3.12: Relative Strength of Structural Test
predicate uses strategy is derived from APU+C strategy by dropping the Strategies.
requirement that we include a c-use for the variable if there are no p-uses for the
variable. The all computational uses strategy is derived from ACU+P strategy by
dropping the requirement that we include a p-use for the variable if there are no oThe right-hand side of this graph, along the path from "all paths" to "all
c-uses for the variable. statements" is the more interesting hierarchy for practical applications.
o Note that although ACU+P is stronger than ACU, both are incomparable to the
It is intuitively obvious that ACU should be weaker than ACU+P and predicate-biased strategies. Note also that "all definitions" is not comparable to
that APU should be weaker than APU+C. ACU or APU.
SLICING AND DICING:
o A (static) program slice is a part of a program (e.g., a selected set of statements)
ORDERING THE STRATEGIES: defined with respect to a given variable X (where X is a simple variable or a data
o Figure 3.12 compares path-flow and data-flow testing strategies. The arrows vector) and a statement i: it is the set of all statements that could (potentially,
denote that the strategy at the arrow's tail is stronger than the strategy at the under static analysis) affect the value of X at statement i - where the influence of a
arrow's head. faulty statement could result from an improper computational use or predicate
use of some other variables at prior statements.
o If X is incorrect at statement i, it follows that the bug must be in the program slice
for X with respect to i
o A program dice is a part of a slice in which all statements which are known to be
correct have been removed.
o In other words, a dice is obtained from a slice by incorporating information
obtained through testing or experiment (e.g., debugging).
o The debugger first limits her scope to those prior statements that could have
caused the faulty value at statement i (the slice) and then eliminates from further

Dept. of CSE Page 56 Dept. of CSE Page 57

 consideration those statements that testing has shown to be correct.
o Debugging can be modeled as an iterative procedure in which slices are further
refined by dicing, where the dicing information is obtained from ad hoc tests
aimed primarily at eliminating possibilities. Debugging ends when the dice has
been reduced to the one faulty statement.
o Dynamic slicing is a refinement of static slicing in which only statements on
achievable paths to the statement in question are included.

Dept. of CSE Page 58