UNIT III

DOMAIN TESTING
Domain Testing:-domains and paths, Nice & ugly domains, domain testing, domains and
interfaces testing, domain and interface testing, domains and testability.

DOMAINS AND PATHS:

∑ INTRODUCTION:
o Domain: In mathematics, domain is a set of possible values of an
independent variable or the variables of a function.
o Programs as input data classifiers: domain testing attempts to determine
whether the classification is or is not correct.
o Domain testing can be based on specifications or equivalent
implementation information.
o If domain testing is based on specifications, it is a functional test technique.
o If domain testing is based implementation details, it is a structural test technique.
o For example, you're doing domain testing when you check extreme values of
an input variable.
All inputs to a program can be considered as if they are numbers. For example, a character string can be
treated as a number by concatenating bits and looking at them as if they were a binary integer. This is the
view in domain testing, which is why this strategy has a mathematical flavor.

∑ THE MODEL: The following figure is a schematic representation of domain testing.

Figure 4.1: Schematic Representation of Domain Testing.

o Before doing whatever it does, a routine must classify the input and set it
moving on the right path.
o An invalid input (e.g., value too big) is just a special processing case called
'reject'.
o The input then passes to a hypothetical subroutine rather than on calculations.
o In domain testing, we focus on the classification aspect of the routine rather
than on the calculations.

52
 o Structural knowledge is not needed for this model - only a consistent,
complete specification of input values for each case.
o We can infer that for each case there must be at least one path to process that case.
∑ A DOMAIN IS A SET:
o An input domain is a set.
o If the source language supports set definitions (E.g. PASCAL set types and C
enumerated types) less testing is needed because the compiler does much of it
for us.
o Domain testing does not work well with arbitrary discrete sets of data objects.
o Domain for a loop-free program corresponds to a set of numbers defined over
the input vector.

∑ DOMAINS, PATHS AND PREDICATES:

o In domain testing, predicates are assumed to be interpreted in terms of input
vector variables.
o If domain testing is applied to structure, then predicate interpretation must be
based on actual paths through the routine - that is, based on the implementation
control flow graph.
o Conversely, if domain testing is applied to specifications, interpretation is based
on a specified data flow graph for the routine; but usually, as is the nature of
specifications, no interpretation is needed because the domains are specified
directly.
o For every domain, there is at least one path through the routine.
o There may be more than one path if the domain consists of disconnected parts
or if the domain is defined by the union of two or more domains.
o Domains are defined their boundaries. Domain boundaries are also where most
domain bugs occur.
o For every boundary there is at least one predicate that specifies what numbers belong to the domain and what
numbers don't.
For example, in the statement IF x>0 THEN ALPHA ELSE BETA we know that numbers greater than zero belong to ALPHA
processing domain(s) while zero and smaller numbers belong to BETA domain(s).
o A domain may have one or more boundaries - no matter how many variables
define it. For example, if the predicate is x2 + y2 < 16, the domain is the inside of
a circle of radius 4 about the origin. Similarly, we could define a spherical domain
with one boundary but in three variables.
o Domains are usually defined by many boundary segments and therefore by
many predicates. i.e. the set of interpreted predicates traversed on that path
(i.e., the path's predicate expression) defines the domain's boundaries.

∑ A DOMAIN CLOSURE:
o A domain boundary is closed with respect to a domain if the points on the
boundary belong to the domain.
o If the boundary points belong to some other domain, the boundary is said to be
open.
o Figure 4.2 shows three situations for a one-dimensional domain - i.e., a domain
defined over one input variable; call it x
53
 The importance of domain closure is that incorrect closure bugs are frequent domain bugs. For example, x >= 0 when x >
0 was intended

Figure 4.2: Open and Closed Domains.

∑ DOMAIN DIMENSIONALITY:
o Every input variable adds one dimension to the domain.
o One variable defines domains on a number line.
o Two variables define planar domains.
o Three variables define solid domains.
o Every new predicate slices through previously defined domains and cuts them
in half.
o Every boundary slices through the input vector space with a dimensionality
which is less than the dimensionality of the space.
o Thus, planes are cut by lines and points, volumes by planes, lines and points
and n-spaces by hyperplanes.

∑ BUG ASSUMPTION:
o The bug assumption for the domain testing is that processing is okay but the
domain definition is wrong.
o An incorrectly implemented domain means that boundaries are wrong, which
may in turn mean that control flow predicates are wrong.
o Many different bugs can result in domain errors. Some of them are:

Domain Errors:
ß Double Zero Representation: In computers or Languages that have a
distinct positive and negative zero, boundary errors for negative zero are
common.

ß Floating point zero check: A floating point number can equal zero only if
the previous definition of that number set it to zero or if it is subtracted
from itself or multiplied by zero. So the floating point zero check to be
done against an epsilon value.
54
 ß Contradictory domains: An implemented domain can never be
ambiguous or contradictory, but a specified domain can. A
contradictory
domain specification means that at least two supposedly distinct domains overlap.

ß Ambiguous domains: Ambiguous domains means that union of the

domains is incomplete. That is there are missing domains or holes in the
specified domains. Not specifying what happens to points on the domain
boundary is a common ambiguity.

ß Over specified Domains: his domain can be overloaded with so many

conditions that the result is a null domain. Another way to put it is to say
that the domain's path is unachievable.

ß Boundary Errors: Errors caused in and around the boundary of a domain.

Example, boundary closure bug, shifted, tilted, missing, extra boundary.

ß Closure Reversal: A common bug. The predicate is defined in terms of

>=. The programmer chooses to implement the logical complement and incorrectly uses
<= for the new predicate; i.e., x >= 0 is incorrectly negated as x <= 0, thereby shifting
boundary values to adjacent domains.

ß Faulty Logic: Compound predicates (especially) are subject to faulty logic

transformations and improper simplification. If the predicates define
domain boundaries, all kinds of domain bugs can result from faulty logic
manipulations.

∑ RESTRICTIONS TO DOMAIN TESTING: Domain testing has restrictions, as do other

testing techniques. Some of them include:

o Co-incidental Correctness: Domain testing isn't good at finding bugs for which
the outcome is correct for the wrong reasons. If we're plagued by coincidental
correctness we may misjudge an incorrect boundary. Note that this implies
weakness for domain testing when dealing with routines that have binary
outcomes (i.e., TRUE/FALSE)

o Representative Outcome: Domain testing is an example of partition testing.

Partition-testing strategies divide the program's input space into domains such
that all inputs within a domain are equivalent (not equal, but equivalent) in the
sense that any input represents all inputs in that domain.
o If the selected input is shown to be correct by a test, then processing is
presumed correct, and therefore all inputs within that domain are expected
(perhaps unjustifiably) to be correct. Most test techniques, functional or
structural, fall under partition testing and therefore make this representative
outcome assumption. For example, x2 and 2x are equal for x = 2, but the
functions are different. The functional differences between adjacent domains are
usually simple, such as x + 7 versus x + 9, rather than x2 versus 2x.

55
 Simple Domain Boundaries and Compound Predicates: Compound predicates in which
each part of the predicate specifies a different boundary are not a problem: for example,
x
>= 0 AND x < 17, just specifies two domain boundaries by one compound predicate. As
an example of a compound predicate that specifies one boundary, consider: x = 0 AND y
>= 7 AND y <= 14. This predicate specifies one boundary equation (x = 0) but alternates closure, putting it
in one or the other domain depending on whether y < 7 or y > 14. Treat compound predicates with respect
because they’re more complicated than they seem.

o Functional Homogeneity of Bugs: Whatever the bug is, it will not change the
functional form of the boundary predicate. For example, if the predicate is ax >=
b, the bug will be in the value of a or b but it will not change the predicate to
ax
>= b, say.

o Linear Vector Space: Most papers on domain testing, assume linear boundaries -
not a bad assumption because in practice most boundary predicates are linear.

o Loop Free Software: Loops are problematic for domain testing. The trouble with
loops is that each iteration can result in a different predicate expression (after
interpretation), which means a possible domain boundary change.

NICE AND UGLY DOMAINS:

∑ NICE DOMAINS:
o Where do these domains come from?
Domains are and will be defined by an imperfect iterative process aimed at achieving (user, buyer, voter) satisfaction.
o Implemented domains can't be incomplete or inconsistent. Every input will be
processed (rejection is a process), possibly forever. Inconsistent domains will be
made consistent.
o Conversely, specified domains can be incomplete and/or inconsistent.
Incomplete in this context means that there are input vectors for which no path
is specified, and inconsistent means that there are at least two contradictory
specifications over the same segment of the input space.
o Some important properties of nice domains are: Linear, Complete, Systematic,
And Orthogonal, Consistently closed, Convex and simply connected.
o To the extent that domains have these properties domain testing is easy as
testing gets.
o The bug frequency is lesser for nice domain than for ugly domains.

56
 Figure 4.3: Nice Two-Dimensional Domains.
∑ LINEAR AND NON LINEAR BOUNDARIES:
o Nice domain boundaries are defined by linear inequalities or equations.
o The impact on testing stems from the fact that it takes only two points to
determine a straight line and three points to determine a plane and in general n+
1 point to determine an n-dimensional hyper plane.
o In practice more than 99.99% of all boundary predicates are either linear or can
be linearized by simple variable transformations.

∑ COMPLETE BOUNDARIES:
o Nice domain boundaries are complete in that they span the number space from
plus to minus infinity in all dimensions.
o Figure 4.4 shows some incomplete boundaries. Boundaries A and E have gaps.
o Such boundaries can come about because the path that hypothetically
corresponds to them is unachievable, because inputs are constrained in such a
way that such values can't exist, because of compound predicates that define a
single boundary, or because redundant predicates convert such boundary values
into a null set.
o The advantage of complete boundaries is that one set of tests is needed to
confirm the boundary no matter how many domains it bounds.
o If the boundary is chopped up and has holes in it, then every segment of that
boundary must be tested for every domain it bounds.

Figure 4.4: Incomplete Domain Boundaries.

∑ SYSTEMATIC BOUNDARIES:
o Systematic boundary means that boundary inequalities related by a simple
function such as a constant.
In Figure 4.3 for example, the domain boundaries for u and v differ only by a
constant.

57
 o where fi is an arbitrary linear function, X is the input vector, ki and c are
constants, and g(i,c) is a decent function over i and c that yields a constant, such
as k + ic.
o The first example is a set of parallel lines, and the second example is a set of
systematically (e.g., equally) spaced parallel lines (such as the spokes of a wheel,
if equally spaced in angles, systematic).
o If the boundaries are systematic and if you have one tied down and generate
tests for it, the tests for the rest of the boundaries in that set can be
automatically generated.

∑ ORTHOGONAL BOUNDARIES:
o Two boundary sets U and V (See Figure 4.3) are said to be orthogonal if every
inequality in V is perpendicular to every inequality in U.
o If two boundary sets are orthogonal, then they can be tested independently
o In Figure 4.3 we have six boundaries in U and four in V. We can confirm the
boundary properties in a number of tests proportional to 6 + 4 = 10 (O(n)). If we
tilt the boundaries to get Figure 4.5,
o we must now test the intersections. We've gone from a linear number of cases
to a quadratic: from O(n) to O(n2).

58
 Figure 4.5: Tilted Boundaries.

Figure 4.6: Linear, Non-orthogonal Domain Boundaries.

o Actually, there are two different but related orthogonality conditions. Sets of
boundaries can be orthogonal to one another but not orthogonal to the
coordinate axes (condition 1), or boundaries can be orthogonal to the coordinate
axes (condition 2).

∑ CLOSURE CONSISTENCY:
o Figure 4.6 shows another desirable domain property: boundary closures are
consistent and systematic.
o The shaded areas on the boundary denote that the boundary belongs to the
domain in which the shading lies - e.g., the boundary lines belong to the domains
on the right.
o Consistent closure means that there is a simple pattern to the closures - for
example, using the same relational operator for all boundaries of a set of parallel
boundaries.

∑ CONVEX:
o A geometric figure (in any number of dimensions) is convex if you can take two
arbitrary points on any two different boundaries, join them by a line and all
points on that line lie within the figure.
o Nice domains are convex; dirty domains aren't.
o You can smell a suspected concavity when you see phrases such as: ". . . except if
. . .," "However . . .," ". . . but not. . . ." In programming, it's often the buts in the specification that kill you.

∑ SIMPLY CONNECTED:
o Nice domains are simply connected; that is, they are in one piece rather than
pieces all over the place interspersed with other domains.
o Simple connectivity is a weaker requirement than convexity; if a domain is
convex it is simply connected, but not vice versa.
o Consider domain boundaries defined by a compound predicate of the (Boolean)
form ABC. Say that the input space is divided into two domains, one defined by

59
 ABC and, therefore, the other defined by its negation.
o For example, suppose we define valid numbers as those lying between 10 and 17
inclusive. The invalid numbers are the disconnected domain consisting of
numbers less than 10 and greater than 17.
o Simple connectivity, especially for default cases, may be impossible.

∑ UGLY DOMAINS:
o Some domains are born ugly and some are uglified by bad specifications.
o Every simplification of ugly domains by programmers can be either good or bad.
o Programmers in search of nice solutions will "simplify" essential complexity out
of existence. Testers in search of brilliant insights will be blind to essential
complexity and therefore miss important cases.
o If the ugliness results from bad specifications and the programmer's
simplification is harmless, then the programmer has made ugly good.
o But if the domain's complexity is essential (e.g., the income tax code), such
"simplifications" constitute bugs.
o Nonlinear boundaries are so rare in ordinary programming that there's no
information on how programmers might "correct" such boundaries if they're
essential.

∑ AMBIGUITIES AND CONTRADICTIONS:

o Domain ambiguities are holes in the input space.
o The holes may lie within the domains or in cracks between domains.
o Two kinds of contradictions are possible: overlapped domain specifications and
overlapped closure specifications
o Figure 4.7c shows overlapped domains and Figure 4.7d shows dual closure
assignment.

Figure 4.7: Domain Ambiguities and Contradictions.

∑ SIMPLIFYING THE TOPOLOGY:

o The programmer's and tester's reaction to complex domains is the same - simplify
o There are three generic cases: concavities, holes and disconnected pieces.
o Programmers introduce bugs and testers misdesign test cases by: smoothing out
concavities (Figure 4.8a), filling in holes (Figure 4.8b), and joining disconnected
pieces (Figure 4.8c).
60
 Figure 4.8: Simplifying the topology.
∑ RECTIFYING BOUNDARY CLOSURES:
o If domain boundaries are parallel but have closures that go every which way
(left, right, left . . .) the natural reaction is to make closures go the same way (see
Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9: Forcing Closure Consistency.

DOMAIN TESTING:

∑ DOMAIN TESTING STRATEGY: The domain-testing strategy is simple, although possibly

tedious (slow).
o Domains are defined by their boundaries; therefore, domain testing
concentrates test points on or near boundaries.
o Classify what can go wrong with boundaries, then define a test strategy for each
case. Pick enough points to test for all recognized kinds of boundary errors.
o Because every boundary serves at least two different domains, test points used
to check one domain can also be used to check adjacent domains. Remove
redundant test points.
o Run the tests and by posttest analysis (the tedious part) determine if any

61
 boundaries are faulty and if so, how.
o Run enough tests to verify every boundary of everydomain.

∑ DOMAIN BUGS AND HOW TO TEST FOR THEM:

o An interior point (Figure 4.10) is a point in the domain such that all points within
an arbitrarily small distance (called an epsilon neighborhood) are also in the
domain.
o A boundary point is one such that within an epsilon neighborhood there are
points both in the domain and not in the domain.
o An extreme point is a point that does not lie between any two other arbitrary
but distinct points of a (convex) domain.

Figure 4.10: Interior, Boundary and Extreme points.

o An on point is a point on the boundary.
o If the domain boundary is closed, an off point is a point near the boundary but in
the adjacent domain.
o If the boundary is open, an off point is a point near the boundary but in the
domain being tested; see Figure 4.11. You can remember this by the acronym
COOOOI: Closed Off Outside, Open Off Inside.

Figure 4.11: On points and Off points.

o Figure 4.12 shows generic domain bugs: closure bug, shifted boundaries, tilted
boundaries, extra boundary, missing boundary.
62
 Figure 4.12: Generic Domain Bugs.

TESTING ONE DIMENSIONAL DOMAIN:

The closure can be wrong (i.e., assigned to the wrong domain) or the boundary (a point in this case) can be shifted
one way or the other, we can be missing a boundary, or we can have an extra boundary.
1. Figure 4.13 shows possible domain bugs for a one-dimensional open domain
boundary.
2. In Figure 4.13a we assumed that the boundary was to be open for A. The bug
we're looking for is a closure error, which converts > to >= or < to <= (Figure
4.13b). One test (marked x) on the boundary point detects this bug because
processing for that point will go to domain A rather than B.
3. In Figure 4.13c we've suffered a boundary shift to the left. The test point we used
for closure detects this bug because the bug forces the point from the B domain,
where it should be, to A processing. Note that we can't distinguish between a
shift and a closure error, but we do know that we have a bug.

63
 Figure 4.13: One Dimensional Domain Bugs, Open Boundaries.
4. Figure 4.13d shows a shift the other way. The on point doesn't tell us anything
because the boundary shift doesn't change the fact that the test point will be
processed in B. To detect this shift we need a point close to the boundary but
within A. The boundary is open, therefore by definition, the off point is in A
(Open Off Inside).
5. The same open off point also suffices to detect a missing boundary because what
should have been processed in A is now processed in B.
6. To detect an extra boundary we have to look at two domain boundaries. In this
context an extra boundary means that A has been split in two. The two off points
that we selected before (one for each boundary) does the job. If point C had
been a closed boundary, the on test point at C would do it.
7. For closed domains look at Figure 4.14. As for the open boundary, a test point on
the boundary detects the closure bug. The rest of the cases are similar to the
open boundary, except now the strategy requires off points just outside the
domain.

64
 Figure 4.14: One Dimensional Domain Bugs, Closed Boundaries.

∑ TESTING TWO DIMENSIONAL DOMAINS:

1. Figure 4.15 shows possible domain boundary bugs for a two-dimensional domain.
2. A and B are adjacent domains and the boundary is closed with respect to A,
which means that it is open with respect to B.

Figure 4.15: Two Dimensional Domain Bugs.

3. For Closed Boundaries:
Closure Bug: Figure 4.15a shows a faulty closure, such as might be caused by using a wrong operator (for example, x
>= k when x > k was intended, or vice
versa). The two on points detect this bug because those values will get B rather than A processing.

65
 1. Shifted Boundary: In Figure 4.15b the bug is a shift up, which converts
part of domain B into A processing, denoted by A'. This result is caused by
an incorrect constant in a predicate, such as x + y >= 17 when x + y >= 7
was intended. The off point (closed off outside) catches this bug. Figure
4.15c shows a shift down that is caught by the two on points.
2. Tilted Boundary: A tilted boundary occurs when coefficients in the
boundary inequality are wrong. For example, 3x + 7y > 17 when 7x + 3y >
17 was intended. Figure 4.15d has a tilted boundary, which creates erroneous domain
segments A' and B'. In this example the bug is caught by the left on point.
3. Extra Boundary: An extra boundary is created by an extra predicate. An
extra boundary will slice through many different domains and will
therefore cause many test failures for the same bug. The extra boundary
in Figure 4.15e is caught by two on points, and depending on which way
the extra boundary goes, possibly by the off point also.
4. Missing Boundary: A missing boundary is created by leaving a boundary
predicate out. A missing boundary will merge different domains and will
cause many test failures although there is only one bug. A missing
boundary, shown in Figure 4.15f, is caught by the two on points because
the processing for A and B is the same - either A or B processing.

∑ PROCEDURE FOR TESTING: The procedure is conceptually is straight forward. It can be

done by hand for two dimensions and for a few domains and practically impossible for
more than two variables.
1 Identify input variables.
2 Identify variable which appear in domain defining predicates, such as control
flow predicates.
3 Interpret all domain predicates in terms of input variables.
4 For p binary predicates, there are at most 2p combinations of TRUE-FALSE
values and therefore, at most 2p domains. Find the set of all non null
domains. The result is a boolean expression in the predicates consisting a set
of AND terms joined by OR's. For example ABC+DEF+GHI...... Where the
capital letters denote predicates. Each product term is a set of linear
inequality that defines a domain or a part of a multiply connected domains.
5 Solve these inequalities to find all the extreme points of each domain using
any of the linear programming methods.

DOMAIN AND INTERFACE TESTING

∑ INTRODUCTION:
o Recall that we defined integration testing as testing the correctness of the
interface between two otherwise correct components.

66
 o Components A and B have been demonstrated to satisfy their component tests,
and as part of the act of integrating them we want to investigate possible
inconsistencies across their interface.
o Interface between any two components is considered as a subroutine call.
o We're looking for bugs in that "call" when we do interface testing.
o Let's assume that the call sequence is correct and that there are no type
incompatibilities.
o For a single variable, the domain span is the set of numbers between (and
including) the smallest value and the largest value. For every input variable we
want (at least): compatible domain spans and compatible closures (Compatible
but need not be Equal).

∑ DOMAINS AND RANGE:

o The set of output values produced by a function is called the range of the
function, in contrast with the domain, which is the set of input values over which
the function is defined.
o For most testing, our aim has been to specify input values and to predict and/or
confirm output values that result from those inputs.
oInterface testing requires that we select the output values of the calling routine i.e.
caller's range must be compatible with the called routine's domain.
o An interface test consists of exploring the correctness of the following
mappings: caller domain --> caller range (caller unit test)
caller range --> called domain (integration test)
called domain --> called range (called unit test)

∑ CLOSURE COMPATIBILITY:
o Assume that the caller's range and the called domain spans the same numbers -
for example, 0 to 17.
o Figure 4.16 shows the four ways in which the caller's range closure and the
called's domain closure can agree.
o The thick line means closed and the thin line means open. Figure 4.16 shows the
four cases consisting of domains that are closed both on top (17) and bottom (0),
open top and closed bottom, closed top and open bottom, and open top and
bottom.

Figure 4.16: Range / Domain Closure Compatibility.

o Figure 4.17 shows the twelve different ways the caller and the called can
67
 disagree about closure. Not all of them are necessarily bugs. The four cases
in which a
caller boundary is open and the called is closed (marked with a "?") are probably not buggy. It means that the caller
will not supply such values but the called can accept them.

Figure 4.17: Equal-Span Range / Domain Compatibility Bugs.

∑ SPAN COMPATIBILITY:
o Figure 4.18 shows three possibly harmless span incompatibilities.

Figure 4.18: Harmless Range / Domain Span incompatibility bug

(Caller Span is smaller than Called).
o In all cases, the caller's range is a subset of the called's domain. That's not
necessarily a bug.
o The routine is used by many callers; some require values inside a range and some
don't. This kind of span incompatibility is a bug only if the caller expects the
called routine to validate the called number for the caller.
o Figure 4.19a shows the opposite situation, in which the called routine's domain
has a smaller span than the caller expects. All of these examples are buggy.

68
 Figure 4.19: Buggy Range / Domain Mismatches
o In Figure 4.19b the ranges and domains don't line up; hence good values are
rejected, bad values are accepted, and if the called routine isn't robust enough,
we have crashes.
o Figure 4.19c combines these notions to show various ways we can have holes in
the domain: these are all probably buggy.

∑ INTERFACE RANGE / DOMAIN COMPATIBILITY TESTING:

o For interface testing, bugs are more likely to concern single variables rather than
peculiar combinations of two or more variables.
o Test every input variable independently of other input variables to confirm
compatibility of the caller's range and the called routine's domain span and
closure of every domain defined for that variable.
o There are two boundaries to test and it's a one-dimensional domain; therefore, it
requires one on and one off point per boundary or a total of two on points and
two off points for the domain - pick the off points appropriate to the closure
(COOOOI).
o Start with the called routine's domains and generate test points in accordance to
the domain-testing strategy used for that routine in component testing.
o Unless you're a mathematical whiz you won't be able to do this without tools for
more than one variable at a time.

69
 UNIT IV
PATHS, PATH PRODUCTS AND REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

Paths,Path products and Regular expressions:- path products &pathexpression,reduction

procedure, applications, regular expressions & flow anomaly detection.
Logic Based Testing:-overview,decision tables,pathexpressions,kv charts, specifications.

PATH PRODUCTS AND PATH EXPRESSION:

∑ MOTIVATION:
o Flow graphs are being an abstract representation of programs.
o Any question about a program can be cast into an equivalent question about an
appropriate flowgraph.
o Most software development, testing and debugging tools use flow graphs
analysis techniques.

∑ PATH PRODUCTS:
o Normally flow graphs used to denote only control flow connectivity.
o The simplest weight we can give to a link is a name.
o Using link names as weights, we then convert the graphical flow graph into an
equivalent algebraic like expressions which denotes the set of all possible paths
from entry to exit for the flow graph.
o Every link of a graph can be given a name.
o The link name will be denoted by lower case italic letters In tracing a path or
path segment through a flow graph, you traverse a succession of link names.
o The name of the path or path segment that corresponds to those links is
expressed naturally by concatenating those link names.
o For example, if you traverse links a,b,c and d along some path, the name for that
path segment is abcd. This path name is also called a path product. Figure 5.1
shows some examples:

70
 Figure 5.1: Examples of paths.
∑ PATH EXPRESSION:
o Consider a pair of nodes in a graph and the set of paths between those node.
o Denote that set of paths by Upper case letter such as X,Y. From Figure 5.1c,
the members of the path set can be listed as follows:
ac, abc, abbc, abbbc, abbbbc.............
o Alternatively, the same set of paths can be denoted by :
ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+abbbbc+...........
o The + sign is understood to mean "or" between the two nodes of interest, paths
ac, or abc, or abbc, and so on can be taken.
o Any expression that consists of path names and "OR"s and which denotes a set
of paths between two nodes is called a "Path Expression”.

∑ PATH PRODUCTS:
o The name of a path that consists of two successive path segments is
conveniently expressed by the concatenation or Path Product of the segment
names.
o For example, if X and Y are defined as X=abcde,Y=fghij,then the path
corresponding to X followed by Y is denoted by
XY=abcdefghij
o Similarly,
YX=fghijabcde
aX=aabcde
Xa=abcdea
XaX=abcdeaabcde
o If X and Y represent sets of paths or path expressions, their product represents
the set of paths that can be obtained by following every element of X by any
element of Y in all possible ways. For example,
o X = abc + def + ghi

71
 o Y = uvw + z
Then,
XY = abcuvw + defuvw + ghiuvw + abcz + defz + ghiz
o If a link or segment name is repeated, that fact is denoted by an exponent.
The exponent's value denotes the number of repetitions:
o a1 = a; a2 = aa; a3 = aaa; an = aaaa . . . n times.
Similarly, if X = abcde then

X1 = abcde
X2 = abcdeabcde = (abcde)2
X3 = abcdeabcdeabcde = (abcde)2abcde
= abcde(abcde)2 = (abcde)3
o The path product is not commutative (that is XY!=YX).
o The path product is Associative.
RULE 1: A(BC)=(AB)C=ABC
where A,B,C are path names, set of path names or path expressions.
o The zeroth power of a link name, path product, or path expression is also
needed for completeness. It is denoted by the numeral "1" and denotes the
"path" whose length is zero - that is, the path that doesn't have any links.
o a0 = 1
o X0 = 1

∑ PATH SUMS:
o The "+" sign was used to denote the fact that path names were part of the same
set of paths.
o The "PATH SUM" denotes paths in parallel between nodes.
o Links a and b in Figure 5.1a are parallel paths and are denoted by a + b. Similarly,
links c and d are parallel paths between the next two nodes and are denoted by
c + d.
o The set of all paths between nodes 1 and 2 can be thought of as a set of parallel
paths and denoted by eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf.
o If X and Y are sets of paths that lie between the same pair of nodes, then X+Y
denotes the UNION of those set of paths. For example, in Figure 5.2:

Figure 5.2: Examples of path sums.

The first set of parallel paths is denoted by X + Y + d and the second set by U + V
+ W + h + i + j. The set of all paths in this flowgraph is f(X + Y + d)g(U + V + W
+ h + i + j)k
o The path is a set union operation, it is clearly Commutative and Associative.
o RULE 2: X+Y=Y+X
o RULE 3: (X+Y)+Z=X+(Y+Z)=X+Y+Z
72
 ∑ DISTRIBUTIVE LAWS:
o The product and sum operations are distributive, and the ordinary rules of
multiplication apply; that is
RULE 4: A(B+C)=AB+AC and (B+C)D=BD+CD
o Applying these rules to the below Figure 5.1a yields
o e(a+b)(c+d)f=e(ac+ad+bc+bd)f = eacf+eadf+ebcf+ebdf

∑ ABSORPTION RULE:
o If X and Y denote the same set of paths, then the union of these sets is
unchanged; consequently,
RULE 5: X+X=X (Absorption Rule)
o If a set consists of paths names and a member of that set is added to it, the
"new" name, which is already in that set of names, contributes nothing and can
be ignored.
o For example,
o if X=a+aa+abc+abcd+def then
X+a = X+aa = X+abc = X+abcd = X+def = X
It follows that any arbitrary sum of identical path expressions reduces to the same path expression.
∑ LOOPS:
Loops can be understood as an infinite set of parallel paths. Say that the loop consists of a single link b.
then the set of all paths through that loop point is b0+b1+b2+b3+b4+b5+..............

Figure 5.3: Examples of path loops.

This potentially infinite sum is denoted by b* for an individual link and by X*

Figure 5.4: Another example of path loops.

o The path expression for the above figure is denoted by the
notation: ab*c=ac+abc+abbc+abbbc+................
o Evidently,
aa*=a*a=a+ and XX*=X*X=X+
o It is more convenient to denote the fact that a loop cannot be taken more than a
certain, say n, number of times.
o A bar is used under the exponent to denote the fact as
follows: Xn = X0+X1+X2+X3+X4+X5+..................+Xn

RULES 6 - 16:
o The following rules can be derived from the previous rules:
73
 o RULE 6: Xn + Xm = Xn if n>m
RULE 6: Xn + Xm = Xm if m>n
RULE 7: XnXm = Xn+m
RULE 8: XnX* = X*Xn = X* RULE 9: XnX+ = X+Xn = X+ RULE
10: X*X+ = X+X* = X+ RULE 11: 1 + 1 = 1
RULE 12: 1X = X1 = X
Following or preceding a set of paths by a path of zero length does not change the set.
RULE 13: 1n = 1n = 1* = 1+ = 1
No matter how often you traverse a path of zero length,It is a path of zero length. RULE 14: 1++1 = 1*=1
The null set of paths is denoted by the numeral 0. it obeys the following
rules:
RULE 15: X+0=0+X=X
RULE 16: 0X=X0=0
If you block the paths of a graph for or aft by a graph that has no paths , there won’t be any paths.
REDUCTION PROCEDURE:

∑ REDUCTION PROCEDURE ALGORITHM:

o This section presents a reduction procedure for converting a flowgraph whose
links are labeled with names into a path expression that denotes the set of all
entry/exit paths in that flowgraph. The procedure is a node-by-node removal
algorithm.
o The steps in Reduction Algorithm are as follows:
1. Combine all serial links by multiplying their path expressions.
2. Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
3. Remove all self-loops (from any node to itself) by replacing them with a
link of the form X*, where X is the path expression of the link in that loop.

STEPS 4 - 8 ARE IN THE ALGORIHTM'S LOOP:

4. Select any node for removal other than the initial or final node. Replace it
with a set of equivalent links whose path expressions correspond to all
the ways you can form a product of the set of inlinks with the set of
outlinks of that node.
5. Combine any remaining serial links by multiplying their path expressions.
6. Combine all parallel links by adding their path expressions.
7. Remove all self-loops as in step 3.
8. Does the graph consist of a single link between the entry node and the
exit node? If yes, then the path expression for that link is a path
expression for the original flowgraph; otherwise, return to step 4.
o A flowgraph can have many equivalent path expressions between a given pair of
nodes; that is, there are many different ways to generate the set of all paths
between two nodes without affecting the content of that set.
o The appearance of the path expression depends, in general, on the order in
which nodes are removed.

∑ CROSS-TERM STEP (STEP 4):

o The cross - term step is the fundamental step of the reduction algorithm.
74
 o It removes a node, thereby reducing the number of nodes by one.
o Successive applications of this step eventually get you down to one entry and
one exit node. The following diagram shows the situation at an arbitrary node
that has been selected for removal:

o From the above diagram, one can infer:

o (a + b)(c + d + e) = ac + ad + + ae + bc + bd + be

∑ LOOP REMOVAL OPERATIONS:

o There are two ways of looking at the loop-removal operation:

o In the first way, we remove the self-loop and then multiply all outgoing links by
Z*.
o In the second way, we split the node into two equivalent nodes, call them A and
A' and put in a link between them whose path expression is Z*. Then we remove
node A' using steps 4 and 5 to yield outgoing links whose path expressions are
Z*X and Z*Y.

∑ A REDUCTION PROCEDURE - EXAMPLE:

o Let us see by applying this algorithm to the following graph where we remove
several nodes in order; that is

Figure 5.5: Example Flowgraph for demonstrating reduction

procedure.

o Remove node 10 by applying step 4 and combine by step 5 to yield

75
 o Remove node 9 by applying step4 and 5 to yield

o Remove node 7 by steps 4 and 5, as follows:

o Remove node 8 by steps 4 and 5, to obtain:

o PARALLEL TERM (STEP 6):

Removal of node 8 above led to a pair of parallel links between nodes 4 and 5. combine them to create
a path expression for an equivalent link whose path expression is c+gkh; that is

o LOOP TERM (STEP 7):

76
 Removing node 4 leads to a loop term. The graph has now been replaced with the following
equivalent simpler graph:

o Continue the process by applying the loop-removal step as follows:

o Removing node 5 produces:

o Remove the loop at node 6 to yield:

o Remove node 3 to yield

o Removing the loop and then node 6 result in the following

expression:
a(bgjf)*b(c+gkh)d((ilhd)*imf(bjgf)*b(c+gkh)d)*(ilhd)*e

o You can practice by applying the algorithm on the following flowgraphs and
generate their respective path expressions:

77
 Figure 5.6: Some graphs and their path expressions.
APPLICATIONS:
o The purpose of the node removal algorithm is to present one very generalized
concept- the path expression and way of getting it.
o Every application follows this common pattern:
1. Convert the program or graph into a path expression.
2. Identify a property of interest and derive an appropriate set of "arithmetic"
rules that characterizes the property.
Replace the link names by the link weights for the property of interest. The path expression has now been
converted to an expression in some algebra, such as
1. Ordinary algebra, regular expressions, or boolean algebra. This
algebraic expression summarizes the property of interest over the set
of all paths.
2. Simplify or evaluate the resulting "algebraic" expression to answer the
question you asked.

∑ HOW MANY PATHS IN A FLOW GRAPH ?

o The question is not simple. Here are some ways you could ask it:
1. What is the maximum number of different paths possible?
2. What is the fewest number of paths possible?
3. How many different paths are there really?
4. What is the average number of paths?
o Determining the actual number of different paths is an inherently difficult
problem because there could be unachievable paths resulting from correlated
78
 and dependent predicates.
o If we know both of these numbers (maximum and minimum number of possible
paths) we have a good idea of how complete our testing is.
o Asking for "the average number of paths" is meaningless.

∑ MAXIMUM PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:

o Label each link with a link weight that corresponds to the number of paths that
link represents.
o Also mark each loop with the maximum number of times that loop can be taken.
If the answer is infinite, you might as well stop the analysis because it is clear that
the maximum number of paths will be infinite.
o There are three cases of interest: parallel links, serial links, and loops.

o This arithmetic is an ordinary algebra. The weight is the number of paths in

each set.
o EXAMPLE:
ß The following is a reasonably well-structured program.

Each link represents a single link and consequently is given a weight of "1" to start. Let’s
say the outer loop will be taken exactly four times and inner Loop Can be taken zero or
three times Its path expression, with a little work, is:
Path expression: a(b+c)d{e(fi)*fgj(m+l)k}*e(fi)*fgh
ß A: The flow graph should be annotated by replacing the link name with
the maximum of paths through that link (1) and also note the number
of times for looping.
ß B: Combine the first pair of parallel loops outside the loop and also
the pair in the outer loop.
ß C: Multiply the things out and remove nodes to clear the clutter.

79
 1. For the Inner Loop:
D:Calculate the total weight of inner loop, which can execute a min. of 0 times and max.
of 3 times. So, it inner loop can be evaluated as follows:

13 = 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4
2. E: Multiply the link weights inside the loop: 1 X 4 = 4
3. F: Evaluate the loop by multiplying the link wieghts: 2 X 4 = 8.
4. G: Simpifying the loop further results in the total maximum number
of paths in the flowgraph:

2 X 84 X 2 = 32,768.

80
 Alternatively, you could have substituted a "1" for each link in the path expression and then simplified, as follows:

a(b+c)d{e(fi)*fgj(m+l)k}*e(fi)*fgh
= 1(1 + 1)1(1(1 x 1)31 x 1 x 1(1 + 1)1)41(1 x 1)31 x 1 x 1
= 2(131 x (2))413
= 2(4 x 2)4 x 4
= 2 x 84 x 4 = 32,768
This is the same result we got graphically.Actually, the outer loop should be taken exactly four times. That doesn't
mean it will be taken zero or four times. Consequently, there is a superfluous "4" on the outlink in the last step.
Therefore the maximum number of different paths is 8192 rather than 32,768.

STRUCTURED FLOWGRAPH:
Structured code can be defined in several different ways that do not involve ad-hoc rules such as not using
GOTOs.
A structured flowgraph is one that can be reduced to a single link by successive application of the
transformations of Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7: Structured Flowgraph Transformations.

The node-by-node reduction procedure can also be used as a test for structured code.Flow graphs that DO NOT
contain one or more of the graphs shown below (Figure 5.8) as subgraphs are structured.
1. Jumping into loops
2. Jumping out of loops
3. Branching into decisions
4. Branching out of decisions

81
 Figure 5.8: Un-structured sub-graphs.
LOWER PATH COUNT ARITHMETIC:
A lower bound on the number of paths in a routine can be approximated for structured flow graphs.
The arithmetic is as follows:

The values of the weights are the number of members in a set of paths.
EXAMPLE:
ß Applying the arithmetic to the earlier example gives us the identical
steps unitl step 3 (C) as below:

82
 ß From Step 4, the it would be different from the previous example:

ß If you observe the original graph, it takes at least two paths to cover
and that it can be done in two paths.
ß If you have fewer paths in your test plan than this minimum you
probably haven't covered. It's another check.

CALCULATING THE PROBABILITY:

Path selection should be biased toward the low - rather than the high-probability paths.This raises an interesting
question:
83
 What is the probability of being at a certain point in a routine?

This question can be answered under suitable assumptions primarily that all probabilities involved are
independent, which is to say that all decisions are independent and uncorrelated. We use the same algorithm as
before: node-by-node removal of uninteresting nodes.
Weights, Notations and Arithmetic:
ß Probabilities can come into the act only at decisions (including decisions
associated with loops).
ß Annotate each outlink with a weight equal to the probability of going in
that direction.
ß Evidently, the sum of the outlink probabilities must equal 1
ß For a simple loop, if the loop will be taken a mean of N times, the looping
probability is N/(N + 1) and the probability of not looping is 1/(N + 1).
ß A link that is not part of a decision node has a probability of 1.
ß The arithmetic rules are those of ordinary arithmetic.

ß In this table, in case of a loop, PA is the probability of the link leaving the
loop and PL is the probability of looping.
ß The rules are those of ordinary probability theory.
1. If you can do something either from column A with a probability
of PA or from column B with a probability PB, then the probability
that you do either is PA + PB.
2. For the series case, if you must do both things, and their
probabilities are independent (as assumed), then the probability
that you do both is the product of their probabilities.
ß For example, a loop node has a looping probability of PL and a probability
of not looping of PA, which is obviously equal to I - PL.

84
 ß Following the above rule, all we've done is replace the outgoing
probability with 1 - so why the complicated rule? After a few steps in
which you've removed nodes, combined parallel terms, removed loops
and the like, you might find something like this:

because PL + PA + PB + PC = 1, 1 - PL = PA + PB + PC, and

85
 which is what we've postulated for any decision. In other words, division by 1 - PL
renormalizes the outlink probabilities so that their sum equals unity after the loop is
removed.

EXAMPLE:
ß Here is a complicated bit of logic. We want to know the probability
associated with cases A, B, and C.

ß Let us do this in three parts, starting with case A. Note that the sum of
the probabilities at each decision node is equal to 1. Start by throwing
away anything that isn't on the way to case A, and then apply the
reduction procedure. To avoid clutter, we usually leave out probabilities
equal to 1.

CASE A:

86
 ß Case B is simpler:

ß Case C is similar and should yield a probability of 1 - 0.125 - 0.158 =

0.717:

ß These checks. It's a good idea when doing this sort of thing to calculate all
the probabilities and to verify that the sum of the routine's exit
probabilities does equal 1.
ß If it doesn't, then you've made calculation error or, more likely, you've left
out some bra How about path probabilities? That's easy. Just trace the
path of interest and multiply the probabilities as you go.
ß Alternatively, write down the path name and do the indicated arithmetic
operation.

87
 ß Say that a path consisted of links a, b, c, d, e, and the associated
probabilities were .2, .5, 1., .01, and I respectively. Path
abcbcbcdeabddea would have a probability of 5 x 10-10.
ß Long paths are usually improbable.

MEAN PROCESSING TIME OF A ROUTINE:

Given the execution time of all statements or instructions for every link in a flowgraph and the probability for
each direction for all decisions are to find the mean processing time for the routine as a whole.
The model has two weights associated with every link: the processing time for that link, denoted by T, and the
probability of that link P.
The arithmetic rules for calculating the mean time:

EXAMPLE:
1. Start with the original flow graph annotated with probabilities and processing time.

2.Combine the parallel links of the outer loop. The result is just the mean of the
processing times for the links because there aren't any other links leaving the first
node. Also combine the pair of links at the beginning of the flow graph.

3. Combine as many serial links as you can.

88
 4. Use the cross-term step to eliminate a node and to create the inner self - loop.
5.Finally, you can get the mean processing time, by using the arithmetic rules as
follows:

PUSH/POP, GET/RETURN:
This model can be used to answer several different questions that can turn up in debugging. It can also help
decide which test cases to design.
The question is:

Given a pair of complementary operations such as PUSH (the stack) and POP
(the stack), considering the set of all possible paths through the routine, what
is the net effect of the routine? PUSH or POP? How many times? Under what
conditions?
Here are some other examples of complementary operations to which this model applies: GET/RETURN a
resource block.
OPEN/CLOSE a file.
START/STOP a device or process.

89
EXAMPLE 1 (PUSH / POP):
ß Here is the Push/Pop Arithmetic:

ß The numeral 1 is used to indicate that nothing of interest (neither

PUSH nor POP) occurs on a given link.
ß "H" denotes PUSH and "P" denotes POP. The operations are
commutative, associative, and distributive.

ß Consider the following flow graph:

P(P + 1)1{P(HH)n1HP1(P + H)1}n2P(HH)n1HPH

ß Simplifying by using the arithmetic tables,
= (P2 + P){P(HH)n1(P + H)}n1(HH)n1
= (P2 + P){H2n1(P2 + 1)}n2H2n1
ß Below Table 5.9 shows several combinations of values for the twolooping
terms - M1 is the number of times the inner loop will be taken and M2
the number of times the outer loop will be taken.

90
 Figure 5.9: Result of the PUSH / POP Graph Analysis.
ß These expressions state that the stack will be popped only if the inner
loop is not taken.
ß The stack will be left alone only if the inner loop is iterated once, but it
may also be pushed.
ß For all other values of the inner loop, the stack will only be pushed.

EXAMPLE 2 (GET / RETURN):

ß Exactly the same arithmetic tables used for previous example are used
for GET / RETURN a buffer block or resource, or, in fact, for any pair of

91
 complementary operations in which the total number of operations in either direction
is cumulative.
ß The arithmetic tables for GET/RETURN are:

"G" denotes GET and "R" denotes RETURN.

ß Consider the following flowgraph:

ß G(G + R)G(GR)*GGR*R
= G(G + R)G3R*R
= (G + R)G3R*
= (G4 + G2)R*
ß This expression specifies the conditions under which the resources will be
balanced on leaving the routine.
ß If the upper branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop must be
taken four times.
ß If the lower branch is taken at the first decision, the second loop must be
taken twice.
ß For any other values, the routine will not balance. Therefore, the first
loop does not have to be instrumented to verify this behavior because its
impact should be nil.

LIMITATIONS AND SOLUTIONS:

o The main limitation to these applications is the problem of unachievable paths.

o The node-by-node reduction procedure, and most graph-theory-based algorithms work
well when all paths are possible, but may provide misleading results when some paths
are unachievable.
o The approach to handling unachievable paths (for any application) is to partition
the graph into subgraphs so that all paths in each of the subgraphs are achievable.
o The resulting subgraphs may overlap, because one path may be common to
several different subgraphs.
o Each predicate's truth-functional value potentially splits the graph into two
subgraphs. For n predicates, there could be as many as 2n subgraphs.

92
 REGULAR EXPRESSIONS AND FLOW ANOMALY DETECTION:

∑ THE PROBLEM:
o The generic flow-anomaly detection problem (note: not just data-flow
anomalies, but any flow anomaly) is that of looking for a specific sequence of
options considering all possible paths through a routine.
o Let the operations be SET and RESET, denoted by s and r respectively, and we
want to know if there is a SET followed immediately a SET or a RESET followed
immediately by a RESET (an ss or an rr sequence).
o Some more application examples:
1. A file can be opened (o), closed (c), read (r), or written (w). If the file is
read or written to after it's been closed, the sequence is nonsensical.
Therefore, cr and cw are anomalous. Similarly, if the file is read before
it's been written, just after opening, we may have a bug. Therefore, or is
also anomalous. Furthermore, oo and cc, though not actual bugs, are a
waste of time and therefore should also be examined.
2. A tape transport can do a rewind (d), fast-forward (f), read (r), write (w),
stop (p), and skip (k). There are rules concerning the use of the transport;
for example, you cannot go from rewind to fast-forward without an
intervening stop or from rewind or fast-forward to read or write without
an intervening stop. The following sequences are anomalous: df, dr, dw,
fd, and fr. Does the flowgraph lead to anomalous sequences on any path?
If so, what sequences and under what circumstances?
3. The data-flow anomalies discussed in Unit 4 requires us to detect the
dd, dk, kk, and ku sequences. Are there paths with anomalous data
flows?

∑ THE METHOD:
o Annotate each link in the graph with the appropriate operator or the null
operator 1.
o Simplify things to the extent possible, using the fact that a + a = a and 12 = 1.
o You now have a regular expression that denotes all the possible sequences
of operators in that graph. You can now examine that regular expression for
the sequences of interest.
o EXAMPLE: Let A, B, C, be nonempty sets of character sequences whose smallest
string is at least one character long. Let T be a two-character string of characters.
Then if T is a substring of (i.e., if T appears within) ABnC, then T will appear in
AB2C. (HUANG's Theorem)
As an example, let
o A = pp
B = srr
C = rp
T = ss
93
 The theorem states that ss will appear in pp(srr)nrp if it appears in pp(srr)2rp.
o However, let

A = p + pp + ps
B = psr + ps(r + ps)
C = rp
T = P4

Is it obvious that there is a p4 sequence in ABnC? The theorem states that we have only to look at

(p + pp + ps)[psr + ps(r + ps)]2rp

Multiplying out the expression and simplifying shows that there is no p4

sequence.
o Incidentally, the above observation is an informal proof of the wisdom of looping
twice discussed in Unit 2. Because data-flow anomalies are represented by two-
character sequences, it follows the above theorem that looping twice is what you
need to do to find such anomalies.

∑ LIMITATIONS:
o Huang's theorem can be easily generalized to cover sequences of greater length
than two characters. Beyond three characters, though, things get complex and
this method has probably reached its utilitarian limit for manual application.
o There are some nice theorems for finding sequences that occur at the beginnings
and ends of strings but no nice algorithms for finding strings buried in an
expression.
o Static flow analysis methods can't determine whether a path is or is not
achievable. Unless the flow analysis includes symbolic execution or similar
techniques, the impact of unachievable paths will not be included in the analysis.
The flow-anomaly application, for example, doesn't tell us that there will be a flow anomaly - it tells us
that if the path is achievable, then there will be a flow anomaly. Such analytical problems go away, of
course, if you take the trouble to design routines for which all paths are achievable.

94