This ebook is the first authorized digital version of Kernighan and Ritchie's 1988 classic, The C Programming Language (2nd Ed.). One of the best-selling programming books published in the last fifty years, "K&R" has been called everything from the "bible" to "a landmark in computer science" and it has influenced generations of programmers. Available now for all leading ebook platforms, this concise and beautifully written text is a "must-have" reference for every serious programmers digital library.

As modestly described by the authors in the Preface to the First Edition, this "is not an introductory programming manual; it assumes some familiarity with basic programming concepts like variables, assignment statements, loops, and functions. Nonetheless, a novice programmer should be able to read along and pick up the language, although access to a more knowledgeable colleague will help."

The C programming language

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

The Object Management Group's (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) strategy envisages a world where models play a more direct role in software production, being amenable to manipulation and transformation by machine. Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is wider in scope than MDA. MDE combines process and analysis with architecture. This article sets out a framework for model driven engineering, which can be used as a point of reference for activity in this area. It proposes an organisation of the modelling 'space' and how to locate models in that space. It discusses different kinds of mappings between models. It explains why process and architecture are tightly connected. It discusses the importance and nature of tools. It identifies the need for defining families of languages and transformations, and for developing techniques for generating/configuring tools from such definitions. It concludes with a call to align metamodelling with formal language engineering techniques.

Model Driven Engineering

Regression testing is a testing activity that is performed to provide confidence that changes do not harm the existing behaviour of the software. Test suites tend to grow in size as software evolves, often making it too costly to execute entire test suites. A number of different approaches have been studied to maximize the value of the accrued test suite: minimization, selection and prioritization. Test suite minimization seeks to eliminate redundant test cases in order to reduce the number of tests to run. Test case selection seeks to identify the test cases that are relevant to some set of recent changes. Test case prioritization seeks to order test cases in such a way that early fault detection is maximized. This paper surveys each area of minimization, selection and prioritization technique and discusses open problems and potential directions for future research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Regression testing minimization, selection and prioritization: a survey

Software engineering comprehends several disciplines devoted to prevent and remedy malfunctions and to warrant adequate behaviour. Testing, the subject of this paper, is a widespread validation approach in industry, but it is still largely ad hoc, expensive, and unpredictably effective. Indeed, software testing is a broad term encompassing a variety of activities along the development cycle and beyond, aimed at different goals. Hence, software testing research faces a collection of challenges. A consistent roadmap of the most relevant challenges to be addressed is here proposed. In it, the starting point is constituted by some important past achievements, while the destination consists of four identified goals to which research ultimately tends, but which remain as unreachable as dreams. The routes from the achievements to the dreams are paved by the outstanding research challenges, which are discussed in the paper along with interesting ongoing work.

/pdf/software-testing-research-achievements-challenges-dreams-et7gocee7m.pdf

Software Testing Research: Achievements, Challenges, Dreams

Web-services are broadly considered as an effective means to achieve interoperability between heterogeneous parties of a business process and offer an open platform for developing new composite web-services out of existing ones. In the literature many approaches have been proposed with the aim to automatically compose web-services. All of them assume that, along with the web-service signature, some information is provided about how clients interacting with the web-service should behave when invoking it. We call this piece of information the web-service behavior protocol. Unfortunately, in the practice this assumption turns out to be unfounded. To address this need, in this paper we propose a method to automatically derive from the web-service signature an automaton modeling its behavior protocol. The method, called StrawBerry, combines synthesis and testing techniques. In particular, synthesis is based on data type analysis. The conformance between the synthesized automaton and the implementation of the corresponding web-service is checked by means of testing. The application of StrawBerry to the Amazon E-Commerce Service shows that it is practical and realistic.

/pdf/automatic-synthesis-of-behavior-protocols-for-composable-web-554otpzqn3.pdf

Automatic synthesis of behavior protocols for composable web-services

A test coverage criterion defines a set E/sub r/ of entities of the program flowgraph and requires that every entity in this set is covered under some test Case. Coverage criteria are also used to measure the adequacy of the executed test cases. In this paper, we introduce the notion of spanning sets of entities for coverage testing. A spanning set is a minimum subset of E/sub r/, such that a test suite covering the entities in this subset is guaranteed to cover every entity in E/sub r/. When the coverage of an entity always guarantees the coverage of another entity, the former is said to subsume the latter. Based on the subsumption relation between entities, we provide a generic algorithm to find spanning sets for control flow and data flow-based test coverage criteria. We suggest several useful applications of spanning sets: They help reduce and estimate the number of test cases needed to satisfy coverage criteria. We also empirically investigate how the use of spanning sets affects the fault detection effectiveness.

Using spanning sets for coverage testing

Web Services (WSs) are the W3C-endorsed realization of the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). Since they are supposed to be implementation-neutral, WSs are typically tested black-box at their interface. Such an interface is generally specified in an XML-based notation called the WS Description Language (WSDL). Conceptually, these WSDL documents are eligible for fully automated WS test generation using syntax-based testing approaches. Towards such goal, we introduce the WS-TAXI framework, in which we combine the coverage of WS operations with data-driven test generation. In this paper we present an early-stage implementation of WS-TAXI, obtained by the integration of two existing softwares: soapUI, a popular tool for WS testing, and TAXI, an application we have previously developed for the automated derivation of XML instances from a XML schema. WS-TAXI delivers a complete suite of test messages ready for execution. Test generation is driven by basic coverage criteria and by the application of some heuristics. The application of WS-TAXI to a real case study gave encouraging results.

WS-TAXI: A WSDL-based Testing Tool for Web Services

Our research deals with the use of software architecture (SA) as a reference model for testing the conformance of an implemented system with respect to its architectural specification. We exploit the specification of SA dynamics to identify useful schemes of interactions between system components and to select test classes corresponding to relevant architectural behaviors. The SA dynamics is modeled by labeled transition systems (LTSs). The approach consists of deriving suitable LTS abstractions called ALTSs. ALTSs offer specific views of SA dynamics by concentrating on relevant features and abstracting away from uninteresting ones. Intuitively, deriving an adequate set of test classes entails deriving a set of paths that appropriately cover the ALTS. Next, a relation between these abstract SA tests and more concrete, executable tests needs to be established so that the architectural tests derived can be refined into code-level tests. We use the TRMCS case study to illustrate our hands-on experience. We discuss the insights gained and highlight some issues, problems, and solutions of general interest in architecture-based testing.

Antonia Bertolino

Papers

Software Testing Research: Achievements, Challenges, Dreams

Automatic synthesis of behavior protocols for composable web-services

Using spanning sets for coverage testing

WS-TAXI: A WSDL-based Testing Tool for Web Services

Using software architecture for code testing