Deposits of clastic carbonate-dominated (calciclastic) sedimentary slope systems in the rock record have been identified mostly as linearly-consistent carbonate apron deposits, even though most ancient clastic carbonate slope deposits fit the submarine fan systems better. Calciclastic submarine fans are consequently rarely described and are poorly understood. Subsequently, very little is known especially in mud-dominated calciclastic submarine fan systems. Presented in this study are a sedimentological core and petrographic characterisation of samples from eleven boreholes from the Lower Carboniferous of Bowland Basin (Northwest England) that reveals a >250 m thick calciturbidite complex deposited in a calciclastic submarine fan setting. Seven facies are recognised from core and thin section characterisation and are grouped into three carbonate turbidite sequences. They include: 1) Calciturbidites, comprising mostly of highto low-density, wavy-laminated bioclast-rich facies; 2) low-density densite mudstones which are characterised by planar laminated and unlaminated muddominated facies; and 3) Calcidebrites which are muddy or hyper-concentrated debrisflow deposits occurring as poorly-sorted, chaotic, mud-supported floatstones. These

Phd by thesis

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

Technical foundations introduction software reliability and system reliability the operational profile software reliability modelling survey model evaluation and recalibration techniques practices and experiences best current practice of SRE software reliability measurement experience measurement-based analysis of software reliability software fault and failure classification techniques trend analysis in validation and maintenance software reliability and field data analysis software reliability process assessment emerging techniques software reliability prediction metrics software reliability and testing fault-tolerant SRE software reliability using fault trees software reliability process simulation neural networks and software reliability. Appendices: software reliability tools software failure data set repository.

/pdf/handbook-of-software-reliability-engineering-32dwvaljmm.pdf

Handbook of software reliability engineering

In this paper, we review current requirements engineering (RE) research and identify future research directions suggested by emerging software needs. First, we overview the state of the art in RE research. The research is considered with respect to technologies developed to address specific requirements tasks, such as elicitation, modeling, and analysis. Such a review enables us to identify mature areas of research, as well as areas that warrant further investigation. Next, we review several strategies for performing and extending RE research results, to help delineate the scope of future research directions. Finally, we highlight what we consider to be the "hot" current and future research topics, which aim to address RE needs for emerging systems of the future.

/pdf/research-directions-in-requirements-engineering-2kckbdavsh.pdf

Research Directions in Requirements Engineering

Software product lines or families represent an emerging paradigm that is enabling companies to engineer applications with similar functionality and user requirements more effectively. Behaviour modelling at the architecture level has the potential for supporting behaviour analysis of entire product lines, as well as defining optional and variable behaviour for different products of a family. However, to do so rigorously, a well defined notion of behavioural conformance of a product to its product line must exist. In this paper we provide a discussion on the shortcomings of traditional behaviour modelling formalisms such as Labelled Transition Systems for characterising conformance and propose Modal Transition Systems as an alternative. We discuss existing semantics for such models, exposing their limitations and finally propose a novel semantics for Modal Transition Systems, branching semantics, that can provide the formal underpinning for a notion of behaviour conformance for software product line architectures.

A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures

Microsoft is producing interoperability documentation for Windows client–server and server–server protocols. The Protocol Engineering Team in the Windows organization is responsible for verifying the documentation to ensure that it is of the highest quality. Various test-driven methods are being applied including, when appropriate, a model-based approach. This paper describes core aspects of the quality assurance process and tools that were put in place, and specifically focuses on model-based testing (MBT). Experience so far confirms that MBT works and that it scales, provided it is accompanied by sound tool support and clear methodological guidance. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/model-based-quality-assurance-of-protocol-documentation-4iwebmz4v3.pdf

Model-based quality assurance of protocol documentation: tools and methodology

We present SGR(1), a novel synthesis technique and methodological guidelines for automatically constructing event-based behavior models. Our approach works for an expressive subset of liveness properties, distinguishes between controlled and monitored actions, and differentiates system goals from environment assumptions. We show that assumptions must be modeled carefully in order to avoid synthesizing anomalous behavior models. We characterize nonanomalous models and propose assumption compatibility, a sufficient condition, as a methodological guideline.

Synthesizing nonanomalous event-based controllers for liveness goals

This work presents a technique to compute symbolic polynomial approximations of the amount of dynamic memory required to safely execute a method without running out of memory, for Javalike imperative programs. We consider object allocations and deallocations made by the method and the methods it transitively calls. More precisely, given an initial configuration of the stack and the heap, the peak memory consumption is the maximum space occupied by newly created objects in all states along a run from it. We over-approximate the peak memory consumption using a scopedmemory management where objects are organized in regions associated with the lifetime of methods. We model the problem of computing the maximum memory occupied by any region configuration as a parametric polynomial optimization problem over a polyhedral domain and resort to Bernstein basis to solve it. We apply the developed tool to several benchmarks.

Victor Braberman

Papers

A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures

Model-based quality assurance of protocol documentation: tools and methodology

Synthesizing nonanomalous event-based controllers for liveness goals

Parametric prediction of heap memory requirements

Synthesising Non-Anomalous Event-Based Controllers for Liveness Goals