物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

Aspect] is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ's dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

An overview of AspectJ

We present a new tool, named DART, for automatically testing software that combines three main techniques: (1) automated extraction of the interface of a program with its external environment using static source-code parsing; (2) automatic generation of a test driver for this interface that performs random testing to simulate the most general environment the program can operate in; and (3) dynamic analysis of how the program behaves under random testing and automatic generation of new test inputs to direct systematically the execution along alternative program paths. Together, these three techniques constitute Directed Automated Random Testing, or DART for short. The main strength of DART is thus that testing can be performed completely automatically on any program that compiles -- there is no need to write any test driver or harness code. During testing, DART detects standard errors such as program crashes, assertion violations, and non-termination. Preliminary experiments to unit test several examples of C programs are very encouraging.

/pdf/dart-directed-automated-random-testing-eurqznyu0u.pdf

DART: directed automated random testing

In unit testing, a program is decomposed into units which are collections of functions. A part of unit can be tested by generating inputs for a single entry function. The entry function may contain pointer arguments, in which case the inputs to the unit are memory graphs. The paper addresses the problem of automating unit testing with memory graphs as inputs. The approach used builds on previous work combining symbolic and concrete execution, and more specifically, using such a combination to generate test inputs to explore all feasible execution paths. The current work develops a method to represent and track constraints that capture the behavior of a symbolic execution of a unit with memory graphs as inputs. Moreover, an efficient constraint solver is proposed to facilitate incremental generation of such test inputs. Finally, CUTE, a tool implementing the method is described together with the results of applying CUTE to real-world examples of C code.

/pdf/cute-a-concolic-unit-testing-engine-for-c-348f3tgo6g.pdf

CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C

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

Blast is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. Given a C program and a temporal safety property, Blast either statically proves that the program satisfies the safety property, or provides an execution path that exhibits a violation of the property (or, since the problem is undecidable, does not terminate). Blast constructs, explores, and refines abstractions of the program state space based on lazy predicate abstraction and interpolation-based predicate discovery. This paper gives an introduction to Blast and demonstrates, through two case studies, how it can be applied to program verification and test-case generation. In the first case study, we use Blast to statically prove memory safety for C programs. We use CCured, a type-based memory-safety analyzer, to annotate a program with run-time assertions that check for safe memory operations. Then, we use Blast to remove as many of the run-time checks as possible (by proving that these checks never fail), and to generate execution scenarios that violate the assertions for the remaining run-time checks. In our second case study, we use Blast to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. Given a C program and a target predicate p, Blast determines the program locations q for which there exists a program execution that reaches q with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that cause such executions. Our experiments show that Blast can provide automated, precise, and scalable analysis for C programs.

/pdf/the-software-model-checker-b-last-applications-to-software-230x1m6zfh.pdf

The software model checker B last : Applications to software engineering

Configurable software verification is a recent concept for expressing different program analysis and model checking approaches in one single formalism. This paper presents CPAchecker, a tool and framework that aims at easy integration of new verification components. Every abstract domain, together with the corresponding operations, implements the interface of configurable program analysis (CPA). The main algorithm is configurable to perform a reachability analysis on arbitrary combinations of existing CPAs. In software verification, it takes a considerable amount of effort to convert a verification idea into actual experimental results -- we aim at accelerating this process. We hope that researchers find it convenient and productive to implement new verification ideas and algorithms using this flexible and easy-to-extend platform, and that it advances the field by making it easier to perform practical experiments. The tool is implemented in Java and runs as command-line tool or as Eclipse plug-in. CPAchecker implements CPAs for several abstract domains. We evaluate the efficiency of the current version of our tool on software-verification benchmarks from the literature, and compare it with other state-of-the-art model checkers. CPAchecker is an open-source toolkit and publicly available.

/pdf/cpachecker-a-tool-for-configurable-software-verification-49ongpvexu.pdf

CPACHECKER: a tool for configurable software verification

We have extended the software model checker BLAST to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. More precisely, given a C program and a target predicate p, BLAST determines the set L of program locations which program execution can reach with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that exhibit the truth of p at all locations in L. We have used BLAST to generate test suites and to detect dead code in C programs with up to 30 K lines of code. The analysis and test vector generation is fully automatic (no user intervention) and exact (no false positives).

Generating tests from counterexamples

In automatic software verification, we have observed a theoretical convergence of model checking and program analysis In practice, however, model checkers are still mostly concerned with precision, eg, the removal of spurious counterexamples; for this purpose they build and refine reachability trees Lattice-based program analyzers, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with efficiency We designed an algorithm and built a tool that can be configured to perform not only a purely tree-based or a purely lattice-based analysis, but offers many intermediate settings that have not been evaluated before The algorithm and tool take one or more abstract interpreters, such as a predicate abstraction and a shape analysis, and configure their execution and interaction using several parameters Our experiments show that such customization may lead to dramatic improvements in the precision-efficiency spectrum

/pdf/configurable-software-verification-concretizing-the-2qndw97c78.pdf

Configurable software verification: concretizing the convergence of model checking and program analysis

We present a language for specifying web service interfaces A web service interface puts three kinds of constraints on the users of the service First, the interface specifies the methods that can be called by a client, together with types of input and output parameters; these are called signature constraints Second, the interface may specify propositional constraints on method calls and output values that may occur in a web service conversation; these are called consistency constraints Third, the interface may specify temporal constraints on the ordering of method calls; these are called protocol constraints The interfaces can be used to check, first, if two or more web services are compatible, and second, if a web service A can be safely substituted for a web service B The algorithm for compatibility checking verifies that two or more interfaces fulfill each others' constraints The algorithm for substitutivity checking verifies that service A demands fewer and fulfills more constraints than service B

Dirk Beyer

Papers

The software model checker B last : Applications to software engineering

CPACHECKER: a tool for configurable software verification

Generating tests from counterexamples

Configurable software verification: concretizing the convergence of model checking and program analysis

Web service interfaces