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

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

Mutation Testing is a fault-based software testing technique that has been widely studied for over three decades The literature on Mutation Testing has contributed a set of approaches, tools, developments, and empirical results This paper provides a comprehensive analysis and survey of Mutation Testing The paper also presents the results of several development trend analyses These analyses provide evidence that Mutation Testing techniques and tools are reaching a state of maturity and applicability, while the topic of Mutation Testing itself is the subject of increasing interest

An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing

Proposes the application of the mutation analysis criterion in the context of specifications based on finite state machines. The main concepts of finite state machines and mutation analysis are briefly introduced. An experiment is reported which manually applies mutation analysis to a finite state machine modeling a Class 0 ISO transport protocol specification, using two test-sequence generator criteria-the W method and the TT (transition tours) method. The results obtained are presented, and evidences are given that the use of mutation analysis is effective in this context. Finally, the lines of evolution of the work presented in this paper are briefly discussed. >

Mutation analysis testing for finite state machines

The establishment of a low-cost, effective testing and validation strategy has been pursued by many researchers at the program level as well as at the specification level. The application of mutation testing for validating specifications based on statecharts is proposed. A mutation operator set for statecharts, one of the crucial points for effectively applying mutation testing is defined; in this scope these operators can be taken as a fault model. We also provide strategies to abstract the statechart components according to different statechart features that may comprise the testing and validation activity aims, providing in this way mechanisms for the establishment of an incremental, hierarchical, mutation-based testing strategy. Implementation and functional aspects of PROTEUM/ST, a tool under development are also presented.

Mutation testing applied to validate specifications based on statecharts

This paper presents a formal definition for HMBS (Hypermedia Model Based on Statecharts). HMBS uses the structure and execution semantics of statecharts to specify both the structural organization and the browsing semantics of hypermedia applications. Statecharts are an extension of finite-state machines and the model is thus a generalization of hypergraph-based hypertext models. Some of the most important features of HMBS are its ability to model hierarchy and synchronization of information; provision of mechanisms for specifying access structures, navigational contexts, access control, multiple tailored versions,and hierarchical views. Analysis of the underlying statechart machine allows verification of page reachability, valid paths, and other properties, thus providing mechanisms to support authors in the development of structured applications.

A statechart-based model for hypermedia applications

We present CodeGenie, a tool that implements a test-driven approachto search and reuse of code available on large-scale coderepositories. While using CodeGenie developers design test cases fora desired feature first, similar to Test-driven Development (TDD).However, instead of implementing the feature as in TDD, CodeGenieautomatically searches for it based on information available in thetests. To check the suitability of the candidate results in thelocal context, each result is automatically woven into thedeveloper's project and tested using the original tests. Thedeveloper can then reuse the most suitable result. Later, reusedcode can also be unwoven from the project as wished. For the codesearching and wrapping facilities, CodeGenie relies on Sourcerer, anInternet-scale source code infrastructure that we have developed

CodeGenie: using test-cases to search and reuse source code

Testing is one of the fundamental software development life cycle activities. Considering Reactive Systems such as: metro control, patient hospital monitoring and communication protocols, the testing activity becomes more relevant as errors in these systems can promote severe economical and social losses. The objective of this work is to evaluate the adequacy of applying the Mutation Analysis criterion to validate Petri Net based specifications. A set of mutation operators for Petri Nets, a key point for using Mutation Analysis, as well as the results of applying manually these operators to a Petri Net modeling a level 3 protocol are presented. We also examine the ideas of constrained and randomly selected mutation in this context.

/pdf/mutation-testing-applied-to-validate-specifications-based-on-3zx6dsj37v.pdf

Paulo Cesar Masiero

Papers

Mutation analysis testing for finite state machines

Mutation testing applied to validate specifications based on statecharts

A statechart-based model for hypermedia applications

CodeGenie: using test-cases to search and reuse source code

Mutation Testing Applied to Validate Specifications Based on Petri Nets