Revision as of 17:30, 27 August 2014 edit EXPTIME-complete (talk \| contribs) 86 edits mNo edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:38, 27 August 2014 edit undo EXPTIME-complete (talk \| contribs) 86 edits m →Testability hierarchy: Improved the accuracy of the explanations of the examples (in this modification and my previous one) Next edit →
Line 45: * Class V: all cases. It has been proved that each class is strictly included into the next. For instance, testing when we assume that the behavior of the implementation under test can be denoted by a deterministic [[finite-state machine]] for some known finite sets of inputs and outputs and with some known number of states belongs to Class I (and all subsequent classes). However, if the number of states is not known, then it only belongs to all classes from Class II on. If the implementation under test must be a deterministic finite-state machine failing the specification for a single trace (and its continuations), and its number of states is unknown, then it only belongs to classes from Class III on. Testing temporal machines where transitions are triggered if inputs are produced within some real-bounded interval only belongs to classes from Class IV on, whereas testing many non-deterministic systems only belongs to Class V (but not all, and some even belong to Class I). The inclusion into Class I does not require the simplicity of the ~~model representing the~~assumed computation ~~device~~model, as some testing cases involving implementations written in any programming language, and testing implementations defined as machines depending on continuous magnitudes, have been proved to be in Class I. Other elaborated cases, such as the testing framework by [[Matthew Hennessy]] under must semantics, and temporal machines with rational timeouts, belong to Class II. == Testability of Requirements ==

Software testability: Difference between revisions