Modified condition/decision coverage: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:04, 15 May 2024

Latest revision as of 11:37, 16 August 2025

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 15:

Additionally, NASA requires 100% MC/DC coverage for any safety critical software component in Section 3.7.4 of NPR 7150.2D.<ref>{{cite web |title = NASA Software Engineering Requirements |url=https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2D |publisher=NASA}}</ref>

European Space Agency requires MC/DC coverage for Criticality Category A per ECSS-E-ST-40C Rev. 1 <ref>{{cite web |title = European Cooperation for Space Standardization - Space Engineering Software |url=https://ecss.nl/standard/ecss-e-st-40c-rev-1-software-30-april-2025|publisher=ECSS}}</ref>

==Definitions==

Line 22 ⟶ 24:

;Decision coverage: Every point of entry and exit in the program has been invoked at least once, and every decision in the program has taken all possible outcomes at least once.

;Condition/decision coverage: Every point of entry and exit in the program has been invoked at least once, every condition in a decision in the program has taken all possible outcomes at least once, and every decision in the program has taken all possible outcomes at least once.

;Modified condition/decision coverage: Every point of entry and exit in the program has been invoked at least once, every condition in a decision in the program has taken all possible outcomes at least once, and each condition has been shown to affect that decision outcome independently. A condition is shown to affect a decision's outcome independently by varying just that condition while holding fixed all other possible conditions. The condition/decision criterion does not guarantee the coverage of all conditions in the module because in many [[test case (software)|test case]]s, some conditions of a decision are masked by the other conditions. Using the modified condition/decision criterion, each condition must be shown to be able to act on the decision outcome by itself, everything else being held fixed. The MC/DC criterion is thus much stronger than the condition/decision coverage.

==Criticism==

Line 68 ⟶ 70:

==RC/DC==

In 2002 [[Sergiy Vilkomir]] proposed '''reinforced condition/decision coverage''' ('''RC/DC''') as a stronger version of the MC/DC coverage criterion that is suitable for [[safety-critical system]]s.<ref>{{cite journalbook |last1=Vilkomir |first1=S.A. |last2=Bowen |first2=J.P. |date=2002 |title=Reinforced condition/decision coverage (RC/DC): A new criterion for software testing |journal=International Conference of B and Z Users |series=[[Lecture Notes in Computer Science]] |publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] |volume=2272 |pages=291–308 |doi=10.1007/3-540-45648-1_15 |isbn=978-3-540-43166-4 |authorlink1=Sergiy Vilkomir |authorlink2=Jonathan Bowen}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| title=From MC/DC to RC/DC: formalization and analysis of control-flow testing criteria | first1=S.A. | last1=Vilkomir | authorlink1=Sergiy Vilkomir | first2=J.P. | last2=Bowen | authorlink2=Jonathan Bowen | journal=[[Formal Aspects of Computing]] | volume=18 | number=1 | pages=42–62 | date=2006 | publisher=[[Springer Nature]] | doi=10.1007/s00165-005-0084-7 | s2cid=10467796 | doi-access=free }}</ref>

[[Jonathan Bowen]] and his co-author analyzed several variants of MC/DC and RC/DC and concluded that at least some MC/DC variants have superior coverage over RC/DC.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kapoor |first1=Kalpesh |last2=Bowen |first2=Jonathan P |authorlink2=Jonathan Bowen |title=A formal analysis of MCDC and RCDC test criteria |journal=Software Testing, Verification and Reliability |date=2005 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=21–40 |doi=10.1002/stvr.306 |publisher=[[Wiley Online Library]]|s2cid=35276126 }}</ref>