UNIT-II

Transaction Flow Testing: Transaction Flows, Transaction Flow Testing Techniques.

Dataflow Testing: Basics of Dataflow Testing, Strategies in Dataflow Testing, Application

Of Dataflow Testing.

Topic 1: Transaction Flows

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.

Example of a transaction: A transaction for an online information retrieval 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: 

● USAGE:
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 alternative but not both. (See Figure 3.2 (a))
 2. Biosis:Here the incoming transaction gives birth to a new
transaction, and both transaction continue on their separate
paths, and the parent retains it identity. (See Figure 3.2 (b))
3. Mitosis:Here the parent transaction is destroyed and two new
transactions are created.(See Figure 3.2 (c))

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

1. 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))
2. Absorption: In absorption case, the predator transaction absorbs prey transaction.
The prey gone but the predator retains its identity. (See Figure 3.3 (b))
3. Conjugation: In conjugation case, the two parent transactions merge to form a
new daughter. In keeping with the biological flavor this case is called as
conjugation.(See Figure 3.3 (c))

Topic 2: Transaction Flow Testing Techniques.

Get The Transactions Flows:

● Complicated systems that process a lot of different, complicated transactions should have
explicit representations of the transactions flows, or the equivalent.
● Transaction flows are like control flow graphs, and consequently we should expect to
have them in increasing levels of detail.
● The system's design documentation should contain an overview section that details the
main transaction flows.
● Detailed transaction flows are a mandatory prerequisite to the rational design of a
system's functional test.
Inspections, Reviews and Walkthroughs:
● Transaction flows are natural agenda for system reviews or inspections.

● In conducting the walkthroughs, you should:

● Discuss enough transaction types to account for 98%-99% of the transaction the system is
expected to process.
● Discuss paths through flows in functional rather than technical terms.

● Ask the designers to relate every flow to the specification and to show how that
transaction, directly or indirectly, follows from the requirements.
● Make transaction flow testing the cornerstone of system functional testing just as path
testing is the cornerstone of unit testing.
● Select additional flow paths for loops, extreme values, and domain boundaries.

● Design more test cases to validate all births and deaths.

● Publish and distribute the selected test paths through the transaction flows as early as
possible so that they will exert the maximum beneficial effect on the project.
Path Selection:
● Select a set of covering paths (c1+c2) using the analogous criteria that were used for
structural path testing.
● Select a covering set of paths based on functionally sensible transactions, as you would
for control flow graphs.
● Try to find the most tortuous, longest, strangest path from the entry to the exit of the
transaction flow.
Path Sensitization:
● Add your content...Most of the normal paths are very easy to sensitize-80% - 95%
transaction flow coverage (c1+c2) is usually easy to achieve.
● The remaining small percentage is often very difficult.

● Sensitization is the act of defining the transaction. If there are sensitization problems on
the easy paths, then bet on either a bug in transaction flows or a design bug.
Path Instrumentation:
● Instrumentation plays a bigger role in transaction flow testing than in unit path testing.

● The information of the path taken for a given transaction must be kept with that
transaction and can be recorded by a central transaction dispatcher or by the individual
processing modules.
● In some systems, such traces are provided by the operating systems or a running log.

Dataflow Testing: Basics of Dataflow Testing, Strategies in Dataflow Testing, Application

of Dataflow Testing.
BASICS OF DATA FLOW TESTING:

o DATA FLOW TESTING:

▪ 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 of events related to
the status of data objects.
▪ For example, pick enough paths to assure that every data
object has been initialized prior to use or that all defined
objects have been used for something.

o DATA FLOW MACHINES:

▪ There are two types of data flow machines with different
architectures. (1) Von Neumann machnes (2) Multi-
instruction, multi-data machines (MIMD).
▪ Von Neumann Machine Architecture:

▪ Most computers today are von-neumann machines.

▪ This architecture features interchangeable storage
of instructions and data in the same memory units.
▪ The Von Neumann machine Architecture executes
one instruction at a time in the following, micro
instruction sequence:
1. Fetch instruction from memory
2. Interpret instruction
3. Fetch operands
4. Process or Execute
5. Store result
6. Increment program counter
7. GOTO 1
▪ Multi-instruction, Multi-data machines (MIMD)
Architecture:
▪ These machines can fetch several instructions and
objects in parallel.
▪ They can also do arithmetic and logical operations
simultaneously on different data objects.
▪ The decision of how to sequence them depends on
the compiler.
o BUG ASSUMPTION:
 ▪ The bug assumption for data-flow testing strategies is that
control flow is generally correct and that something has gone
wrong with the software so that data objects are not available
when they should be, or silly things are being done to data
objects.
▪ Also, if there is a control-flow problem, we expect it to have
symptoms that can be detected by data-flow analysis.
▪ Although we'll be doing data-flow testing, we won't be using
data flowgraphs as such. Rather, we'll use an ordinary control
flowgraph annotated to show what happens to the data objects
of interest at the moment.
o DATA FLOW GRAPHS:
▪ The data flow graph is a graph consisting of nodes and
directed links. 

Data Object State and Usage:

● Data Objects can be created, killed and used.

● They can be used in two distinct ways: (1) In a Calculation (2) As a part of a
Control Flow Predicate.
● The following symbols denote these possibilities:
1. Defined: d - defined, created, initialized etc
2. Killed or undefined: k - killed, undefined, released etc
3. Usage: u - used for something (c - used in Calculations, p - used in a
predicate)
● 1. Defined (d):

o An object is defined explicitly when it appears in a data declaration.

o Or implicitly when it appears on the left hand side of the assignment.
o It is also to be used to mean that a file has been opened.
o A dynamically allocated object has been allocated.
o Something is pushed on to the stack.
o A record written.
● 2. Killed or Undefined (k):
o An object is killed on undefined when it is released or otherwise made
unavailable.
o When its contents are no longer known with certitude (with aboslute
certainity / perfectness).
o Release of dynamically allocated objects back to the availability pool.
o Return of records.
o The old top of the stack after it is popped.
o 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):
 o A variable is used for computation (c) when it appears on the right hand
side of an assignment statement.
o A file record is read or written.
o 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.
▪ dd :- probably harmless but suspicious. Why define the object twice
without an intervening usage?
▪ dk :- probably a bug. Why define the object without using it?
▪ du :- the normal case. The object is defined and then used.
▪ kd :- normal situation. An object is killed and then redefined.
▪ kk :- harmless but probably buggy. Did you want to be sure it was
really killed?
▪ ku :- a bug. the object doesnot exist.
▪ ud :- usually not a bug because the language permits reassignment at
almost any time.
▪ uk :- normal situation.
▪ uu :- normal situation.

▪ In addition to the two letter situations, there are six single letter situations.
▪ We will use a leading dash to mean that nothing of interest (d,k,u) occurs
prior to the action noted along the entry-exit path of interest.
▪ A trailing dash to mean that nothing happens after the point of interest to
the exit.

▪ They possible anomalies are:

▪ -k :- possibly anomalous because from the entrance to this point on the
path, the variable had not been defined. We are killing a variable that
does not exist.
 ▪ -d :- okay. This is just the first definition along this path.
▪ -u :- possibly anomalous. Not anomalous if the variable is global and
has been previously defined.
▪ k- :- not anomalous. The last thing done on this path was to kill the
variable.
▪ d- :- possibly anomalous. The variable was defined and not used on
this path. But this could be a global definition.
▪ 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.

o DATA FLOW ANOMALY STATE GRAPH:

▪ Data flow anomaly model prescribes that an object can be in one of
four distinct states:
▪ K :- undefined, previously killed, doesnot exist

▪ D :- defined but not yet used for anything

▪ U :- has been used for computation or in predicate
▪ 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. 
Assume that the variable starts in the K state - that is, it has not been defined or does
not exist. If an attempt is made to use it or to kill it (e.g., say that we're talking about
opening, closing, and using files and that 'killing' means closing), the object's state
becomes anomalous (state A) and, once it is anomalous, no action can return the
variable to a working state. If it is defined (d), it goes into the D, or defined but not
yet used, state. If it has been defined (D) and redefined (d) or killed without use (k),
it becomes anomalous, while usage (u) brings it to the U state. If in U, redefinition
(d) brings it to D, u keeps it in U, and k kills it.

Forgiving Data - Flow Anomaly Flow Graph: Forgiving model is an alternate model where
redemption (recover) from the anomalous state is possible.

STATIC Vs DYNAMIC ANOMALY DETECTION:

● Static analysis is analysis done on source code without actually executing it. For
example: source code syntax error detection is the static analysis result.
● Dynamic analysis is done on the fly as the program is being executed and is based
on intermediate values that result from the program's execution. For example: a
division by zero warning is the dynamic result.
● If a problem, such as a data flow anomaly, can be detected by static analysis
methods, then it doesnot belongs in testing - it belongs in the language processor.
● There is actually a lot more static analysis for data flow analysis for data flow
anomalies going on in current language processors.
● For example, language processors which force variable declarations can detect (-u)
and (ku) anomalies.
● But still there are many things for which current notions of static analysis are
INADEQUATE.
● Why Static Analysis isn't enough? There are many things for which current
notions of static analysis are inadequate. They are:
 o 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.
o Arrays:Arrays are problematic in that the array is defined or killed as a
single object, but reference is to specific locations within the array.
Array pointers are usually dynamically calculated, so there's no way to
do a static analysis to validate the pointer value. In many languages,
dynamically allocated arrays contain garbage unless explicitly
initialized and therefore, -u anomalies are possible.
o Records and Pointers:The array problem and the difficulty with
pointers is a special case of multipart data structures. We have the same
problem with records and the pointers to them. Also, in many
applications we create files and their names dynamically and there's no
way to determine, without execution, whether such objects are in the
proper state on a given path or, for that matter, whether they exist at all.
o Dynamic Subroutine and Function Names in a Call:subroutine or
function name is a dynamic variable in a call. What is passed, or a
combination of subroutine names and data objects, is constructed on a
specific path. There's no way, without executing the path, to determine
whether the call is correct or not.
o False Anomalies:Anomalies are specific to paths. Even a "clear bug"
such as ku may not be a bug if the path along which the anomaly exist is
unachievable. Such "anomalies" are false anomalies. Unfortunately, the
problem of determining whether a path is or is not achievable is
unsolvable.
o Recoverable Anomalies and Alternate State Graphs:What constitutes
an anomaly depends on context, application, and semantics. How does
the compiler know which model I have in mind? It can't because the
definition of "anomaly" is not fundamental. The language processor
must have a built-in anomaly definition with which you may or may not
(with good reason) agree.
o 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.

Topic 2: STRATEGIES OF DATA FLOW TESTING:

● INTRODUCTION:
o Data Flow Testing Strategies are structural strategies.
o In contrast to the path-testing strategies, data-flow strategies take into account
what happens to data objects on the links in addition to the raw connectivity of
the graph.
o In other words, data flow strategies require data-flow link weights (d,k,u,c,p).
o Data Flow Testing Strategies are based on selecting test path segments (also
called sub paths) that satisfy some characteristic of data flows for all data
objects.
o For example, all subpaths that contain a d (or u, k, du, dk).
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.

● TERMINOLOGY:

1. Definition-Clear Path Segment, with respect to variable X, is a connected

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 3.9 are definition clear because variables X and Y are defined only on
the first link (1,3) and not thereafter. In Figure 3.10, we have a more
complicated situation. The following path segments are definition-clear: (1,3,4),
(1,3,5), (5,6,7,4), (7,8,9,6,7), (7,8,9,10), (7,8,10), (7,8,10,11). Subpath (1,3,4,5)
is not definition-clear because the variable is defined on (1,3) and again on
(4,5). For practice, try finding all the definition-clear subpaths for this routine
(i.e., for all variables).
2. Loop-Free Path Segment is a path segment for which every node in it is
visited atmost once. For Example, path (4,5,6,7,8,10) in Figure 3.10 is loop
free, but path (10,11,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12) is not because nodes 10 and 11 are
each visited twice.
3. Simple path segment is a path segment in which at most one node is visited
twice. For example, in Figure 3.10, (7,4,5,6,7) is a simple path segment. A
simple path segment is either loop-free or if there is a loop, only one node is
involved.
4. A du path from node i to k is a path segment such that if the last link has a
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
(j,k) has a predicate use - then the path from i to j is both loop-free and
definition-clear.
● STRATEGIES: The structural test strategies discussed below are based on the
program's control flowgraph. They differ in the extent to which predicate uses
and/or computational uses of variables are included in the test set. Various types of
data flow testing strategies in decreasing order of their effectiveness are: 

1. All - du Paths (ADUP): The all-du-paths (ADUP) strategy is the strongest

data-flow testing strategy discussed here. It requires that every du path from
every definition of every variable to every use of that definition be exercised
under some test.
 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
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). 

For variable V: Variable V (Figure 3.11) is defined only once on link (1,3).
Because V has a predicate use at node 12 and the subsequent path to the end
must be forced for both directions at node 12, the all-du-paths strategy for this
variable requires that we exercise all loop-free entry/exit paths and at least one
path that includes the loop caused by (11,4). Note that we must test paths that
include both subpaths (3,4,5) and (3,5) even though neither of these has V
definitions. They must be included because they provide alternate du paths to
the V use on link (5,6). Although (7,4) is not used in the test set for variable V,
it will be included in the test set that covers the predicate uses of array variable
V() and U. 

The all-du-paths strategy is a strong criterion, but it does not take as many tests
as it might seem at first because any one test simultaneously satisfies the
criterion for several definitions and uses of several different variables. 

2. All Uses Startegy (AU):The all uses strategy is that at least one definition clear
path from every definition of every variable to every use of that definition be
exercised under some test. Just as we reduced our ambitions by stepping down
from all paths (P) to branch coverage (C2), say, we can reduce the number of test
cases by asking that the test set should include at least one path segment from
every definition to every use that can be reached by that definition. 

For variable V: In Figure 3.11, ADUP requires that we include subpaths (3,4,5)
and (3,5) in some test because subsequent uses of V, such as on link (5,6), can be
reached by either alternative. In AU either (3,4,5) or (3,5) can be used to start
paths, but we don't have to use both. Similarly, we can skip the (8,10) link if
we've included the (8,9,10) subpath. Note the hole. We must include (8,9,10) in
some test cases because that's the only way to reach the c use at link (9,10) - but
suppose our bug for variable V is on link (8,10) after all? Find a covering set of
paths under AU for Figure 3.11. 

3. All p-uses/some c-uses strategy (APU+C) : For every variable and every
definition of that variable, include at least one definition free path from the
definition to every predicate use; if there are definitions of the variables that are
not covered by the above prescription, then add computational use test cases as
required to cover every definition. 

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
according to the strategy's definition because every definition is covered. Links
(1,3), (4,5), (5,6), and (7,8) must be included because they contain definitions
for variable Z. Links (3,4), (3,5), (8,9), (8,10), (9,6), and (9,10) must be
included 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. 

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. 

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. All Predicate Uses (APU), All Computational Uses (ACU) Strategies : The all
predicate uses strategy is derived from APU+C strategy by dropping the
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
c-uses for the variable. 
● SLICING AND DICING:
1. A (static) program slice is a part of a program (e.g., a selected set of statements)
defined with respect to a given variable X (where X is a simple variable or a data
vector) and a statement i: it is the set of all statements that could (potentially,
under static analysis) affect the value of X at statement i - where the influence of
a faulty statement could result from an improper computational use or predicate
use of some other variables at prior statements.
2. If X is incorrect at statement i, it follows that the bug must be in the program
slice for X with respect to i
3. A program dice is a part of a slice in which all statements which are known to be
correct have been removed.
4. In other words, a dice is obtained from a slice by incorporating information
obtained through testing or experiment (e.g., debugging).
5. 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
consideration those statements that testing has shown to be correct.
6. Debugging can be modelled 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.
7. Dynamic slicing is a refinement of static slicing in which only statements on
achievable paths to the statement in question are included.